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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: desander device, in claims 1, 9, 14, 15; desilter device in claims 3, 10, 14, 15; shaker being configured to vent or burn a gaseous portion in claims 4, 11, and 16, the instant specification appears to provide separate components of a shaker 10 and a separator 11 with a vent/stack 11b.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 11, 16 recite a shaker being configured to vent or burn a gaseous portion. The instant specification appears to provide separate component of a shaker 10 and a separator 11 with a vent/stack 11b, it is unclear if these are meant to be two different components, or one.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed (US 5,570,749), in view of Southall (6,138,834) and Corne (US 1,190,863).
With respect to claim 1, Reed teaches a drill fluid remediation system for treating hydro carbon-contaminated drill cuttings suspended in drilling mud (abstract, a system for separating solids from semi-liquid water stream recovered from a hydrocarbon well), where a mixture of mud and cuttings are carried to the mud pit by pipe 10 (an inlet), the mud stream is passed to a mud pit 20 comprising bins divided by equalizers 22a-f and partial walls 24a-f that provide for the progressive movement of the mud stream through the mud cleaning pit (C4/L5-31, a plurality of cleaning compartments in fluid communication with said inlet that are coupled together in downstream succession), desander 32 with pump 38, (a desander device displaced from and in fluid communication with said plurality of cleaning compartments via a desander conduit, said desander device having a desander pump that is operable to suction the slurry downwardly toward said outlet of a cleaning compartment when energized so as to extract a portion of the slurry), the desander outputs a light stream back into the mud pit (C4/L42-52) and routes heavy stream back to the first compartment (C4/L52-C5/L52, Fig. 2, said desander device being configured to remove sand from said extracted portion so as to generate a first cleaned slurry, said desander device being in fluid communication with plurality of cleaning compartments and configured to deposit said first cleaned slurry into a first cleaning compartment of said plurality of cleaning compartments), and four outlets from the bottom of the much pit (Fig. 2, respective outlets from cleaning compartments). Reed does not teach each cleaning compartment having an inverted pyramidal configuration with a plurality of V-shaped walls defining an interior area and that terminate at an outlet and that is operable for downward settling of the solids from the slurry.
Reed teaches separation of mud from fluid, particularly drilling mud. Southall teaches a recovery apparatus for drilling (C1/L5-63) comprising a recovery tank with a cavity and a base which expedites separation (C2/L1-19), in embodiments the tank has four walls and lower ends that taper together and a valve and manifold for discharge of solids (C2/L34-65, C3/L43-55, Fig. 2B, an inverted pyramidal configuration with a plurality of V-shaped walls defining an interior area and that terminate at an outlet and that is operable for downward settling of the solids from the slurry), and recycling the drilling fluids by reinserting the fluids from a recovery shaker to the recovery tank (C5/L1-9). Additionally, Corne teaches an apparatus for separating solids from liquids comprising a series of settling tanks in the shape of inverted pyramids with baffle plates, the tanks connected together by overflow passages, with each tank having a means for draining (outlets from respective compartments (claim 1, p 2 L25-80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reed’s taught system to include inverse pyramidal tanks as disclosed by Southall and Corne, with drains for each tank as taught by Corne as the use of pyramidal base tanks is known in the art as shown by Southall and Corne, according to Corne the system allows practically all of the mud and heavier particles to be taken off in the earlier stages and extremely clear liquid is secured (p. 2 L125-130), and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
With respect to claim 2, the system as in claim 1, is taught above. Reed teaches bins divided by equalizers 22a-f and partial walls 24a-f that provide for the progressive movement of the mud stream through the mud cleaning pit (C4/L5-31, Fig. 2) said plurality of cleaning compartments each includes an upward directional Weir plate having (1) a lower section that is closed so as to block a remainder portion of the slurry that was not extracted from the slurry from flowing into the interior area of a next downstream cleaning compartment and having (2) an upper section that is open so as to allow the remainder portion of the slurry to flow into the interior area of the next downstream cleaning compartment.
With respect to claim 3, the system as in claim 2, is taught above. Reed teaches a desilter 34 with pump 40 (C4/L38-42, Fig. 2) a desilter device displaced from but in fluid communication with said next downstream cleaning compartment via a desilter conduit, said desilter device having a desilter pump that is operable to suction a respective slurry portion downwardly toward an outlet of said next downstream cleaning compartment when energized so as to extract a portion of the respective slurry portion.
Reed teaches the desilter outputs a light stream back into the mud pit (C4/L42-52) and routes heavy stream back to the first compartment (C4/L38-C5/L52, Fig. 2, said desilter device being in fluid communication with said plurality of cleaning compartments and configured to deposit said second cleaned slurry into said first cleaning compartment of the plurality of cleaning compartments.
With respect to the limitation of said desilter device being configured to remove salt from said extracted portion so as to generate a second cleaned slurry, this is directed to an intended use, absent clarifications of structural differences, the art reads on the claim language.
With respect to claim 4, the system as in claim 1, is taught above. See 112 interpretation and rejections above. Reed teaches gas buster 14 and shakers 16/18 and degasser 28 (C4/L1-37, Fig. 2, a shaker upstream of said plurality of cleaning compartments and in fluid communication with said inlet so as to receive said slurry, and venting or burning a gaseous portion of said slurry and to deposit a liquid portion of said slurry into said plurality of cleaning compartments. While Reed does not explicitly teach a shaker configured to vent or burn a gaseous portion, shakers are typically open to the air and some venting would likely occur, absent clarification of how the shaker is configured, the art reads on the claim language.
With respect to claim 5, the system as in claim 2 is taught above. Reed teaches equalizers 22a-f are each provided with a gate located at their end adjacent to the bottom of the mud cleaning pit 20 (each said lower section of a respective upward directional Weir plate is coupled to a bottom wall of a respective cleaning compartment such that the lower section of said Weir plate blocks said remainder portion of the slurry, respectively), are designed to back flow for proper mud cleaning and the top of equalizers 22a-f are located approximately four inches below the mud cleaning level (C4/L21-31, each said upper section of said respective upward directional Weir plate is displaced from an upper wall of said respective cleaning compartment such that the upper section of said Weir plate, respectively, allows said remainder portion of the slurry to flow downstream into said next downstream cleaning compartment).
With respect to claim 6, the system as in claim 5 is taught above. Reed teaches partial walls 24a-f (C4/L21-31, Fig. 2, which appear to provide wherein said plurality of cleaning compartments each includes a downward directional Weir plate each having (1) an upper section that is closed so as to block a remainder portion of the slurry that was not extracted from the slurry from flowing into the interior area of a next downstream cleaning compartment and having (2) a lower section that is open so as to allow the remainder portion of the slurry to flow downstream toward a respective outlet of a respective cleaning compartment).
With respect to claim 7, the system as in claim 6, Reed teaches mud pit 20 comprising bins divided by equalizers 22a-f, and partial walls 24a-f as discussed above, 22a-f and 24a-f extend and partition the bins (compartments) into chambers (Fig. 2), while Reed does not explicitly teach the equalizers and partial walls coupled to an upper edge of a respective cleaning compartment, absent clarification of structural differences the equalizers and partial wall would inherently be coupled to the mud pit. Additionally, Corne teaches baffles mounted in the tanks (claim 1), and metal plates that may be secured in the tanks in any convenient way (P. 1, L/75-90).
With respect to claim 8, Reed teaches a drill fluid remediation system for treating hydro carbon-contaminated drill cuttings suspended in drilling mud (abstract, a system for separating solids from semi-liquid water stream recovered from a hydrocarbon well), where a mixture of mud and cuttings are carried to the mud pit by pipe 10 (an inlet), the mud stream is passed to a mud pit 20 comprising bins divided by equalizers 22a-f and partial walls 24a-f that provide for the progressive movement of the mud stream through the mud cleaning pit (C4/L5-31, a plurality of cleaning compartments in fluid communication with said inlet that are coupled together in downstream succession), equalizers 22a-f are each provided with a gate located at their end adjacent to the bottom of the mud cleaning pit 20 and the top of equalizers 22a-f are located approximately four inches below the mud cleaning level (C4/L21-31, cleaning compartments including an upward directional weir and a lower section that is closed and an upper section that is open), partial walls 24a-f (C4/L21-31, Fig. 2, which appear to provide wherein said plurality of cleaning compartments each includes a downward directional Weir plate each having an upper section that is closed and a lower section that is open), and four outlets from the bottom of the much pit (Fig. 2, respective outlets from cleaning compartments).
Reed does not teach each cleaning compartment having an inverted pyramidal configuration with a plurality of V-shaped walls defining an interior area and that terminate at an outlet and that is operable for downward settling of the solids from the slurry.
Reed teaches separation of mud from fluid, particularly drilling mud. Southall teaches a recovery apparatus for drilling (C1/L5-63) comprising a recovery tank with a cavity and a base which expedites separation (C2/L1-19), in embodiments the tank has four walls and lower ends that taper together and a valve and manifold for discharge of solids (C2/L34-65, C3/L43-55, Fig. 2B, an inverted pyramidal configuration with a plurality of V-shaped walls defining an interior area and that terminate at an outlet and that is operable for downward settling of the solids from the slurry), and recycling the drilling fluids by reinserting the fluids from a recovery shaker to the recovery tank (C5/L1-9). Additionally, Corne teaches an apparatus for separating solids from liquids comprising a series of settling tanks in the shape of inverted pyramids with baffle plates, the tanks connected together by overflow passages, with each tank having a means for draining (outlets from respective compartments (claim 1, p 2 L25-80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reed’s taught system to include inverse pyramidal tanks as disclosed by Southall and Corne, with drains for each tank as taught by Corne as the use of pyramidal base tanks is known in the art as shown by Southall and Corne, according to Corne the system allows practically all of the mud and heavier particles to be taken off in the earlier stages and extremely clear liquid is secured (p. 2 L125-130), and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
With respect to claim 9, the system as in claim 8, is taught above. Reed teaches desander 32 with pump 38, (a desander device displaced from and in fluid communication with said plurality of cleaning compartments via a desander conduit, said desander device having a desander pump that is operable to suction the slurry downwardly toward said outlet of a cleaning compartment when energized so as to extract a portion of the slurry), the desander outputs a light stream back into the mud pit (C4/L42-52) and routes heavy stream back to the first compartment (C4/L52-C5/L52, Fig. 2, said desander device being configured to remove sand from said extracted portion so as to generate a first cleaned slurry, said desander device being in fluid communication with plurality of cleaning compartments and configured to deposit said first cleaned slurry into a first cleaning compartment of said plurality of cleaning compartments).
With respect to claim 10 the system as in claim 9, is taught above Reed teaches a desilter 34 with pump 40 (C4/L38-42, Fig. 2) a desilter device displaced from but in fluid communication with said next downstream cleaning compartment via a desilter conduit, said desilter device having a desilter pump that is operable to suction a respective slurry portion downwardly toward an outlet of said next downstream cleaning compartment when energized so as to extract a portion of the respective slurry portion.
Reed teaches the desilter outputs a light stream back into the mud pit (C4/L42-52) and routes heavy stream back to the first compartment (C4/L38-C5/L52, Fig. 2, said desilter device being in fluid communication with said plurality of cleaning compartments and configured to deposit said second cleaned slurry into said first cleaning compartment of the plurality of cleaning compartments.
With respect to the limitation of said desilter device being configured to remove salt from said extracted portion so as to generate a second cleaned slurry, this is directed to an intended use, absent clarifications of structural differences, the art reads on the claim language.
With respect to claim 11, the system as in claim 8, is taught above. See 112 interpretation and rejections above. Reed teaches gas buster 14 and shakers 16/18 and degasser 28 (C4/L1-37, Fig. 2, a shaker upstream of said plurality of cleaning compartments and in fluid communication with said inlet so as to receive said slurry, and venting or burning a gaseous portion of said slurry and to deposit a liquid portion of said slurry into said plurality of cleaning compartments. While Reed does not explicitly teach a shaker configured to vent or burn a gaseous portion, shakers are typically open to the air and some venting would likely occur, absent clarification of how the shaker is configured, the art reads on the claim language.
With respect to claim 12, the system as in claim 8, is taught above. Reed teaches equalizers 22a-f are each provided with a gate located at their end adjacent to the bottom of the mud cleaning pit 20 (each said lower section of a respective upward directional Weir plate is coupled to a bottom wall of a respective cleaning compartment such that the lower section of said Weir plate blocks said remainder portion of the slurry, respectively), are designed to back flow for proper mud cleaning and the top of equalizers 22a-f are located approximately four inches below the mud cleaning level (C4/L21-31, each said upper section of said respective upward directional Weir plate is displaced from an upper wall of said respective cleaning compartment such that the upper section of said Weir plate, respectively, allows said remainder portion of the slurry to flow downstream into said next downstream cleaning compartment).
With respect to claim 13, the system as in claim 12, is taught above. Reed teaches mud pit 20 comprising bins divided by equalizers 22a-f, and partial walls 24a-f as discussed above, 22a-f and 24a-f extend and partition the bins (compartments) into chambers (Fig. 2), while Reed does not explicitly teach the equalizers and partial walls coupled to an upper edge of a respective cleaning compartment, absent clarification of structural differences the equalizers and partial wall would inherently be coupled to the mud pit. Additionally, Corne teaches baffles mounted in the tanks (claim 1), and metal plates that may be secured in the tanks in any convenient way (P. 1, L/75-90).
With respect to claim 14, Reed teaches a drill fluid remediation system for treating hydro carbon-contaminated drill cuttings suspended in drilling mud (abstract, a system for separating solids from semi-liquid water stream recovered from a hydrocarbon well), where a mixture of mud and cuttings are carried to the mud pit by pipe 10 (an inlet), desander 32 with pump 38, desilter 34 with pump 40 (C4/L38-42, Fig. 2), the mud stream is passed to a mud pit 20 comprising bins divided by equalizers 22a-f and partial walls 24a-f that provide for the progressive movement of the mud stream through the mud cleaning pit (C4/L5-31, a plurality of cleaning compartments in fluid communication with said inlet that are coupled together in downstream succession), equalizers 22a-f are each provided with a gate located at their end adjacent to the bottom of the mud cleaning pit 20 and the top of equalizers 22a-f are located approximately four inches below the mud cleaning level (C4/L21-31, cleaning compartments including an upward directional weir and a lower section that is closed and an upper section that is open), partial walls 24a-f (C4/L21-31, Fig. 2, which appear to provide wherein said plurality of cleaning compartments each includes a downward directional Weir plate each having an upper section that is closed and a lower section that is open), and four outlets from the bottom of the much pit (Fig. 2, respective outlets from cleaning compartments).
Reed does not teach each cleaning compartment having an inverted pyramidal configuration with a plurality of V-shaped walls defining an interior area and that terminate at an outlet and that is operable for downward settling of the solids from the slurry.
Reed teaches separation of mud from fluid, particularly drilling mud. Southall teaches a recovery apparatus for drilling (C1/L5-63) comprising a recovery tank with a cavity and a base which expedites separation (C2/L1-19), in embodiments the tank has four walls and lower ends that taper together and a valve and manifold for discharge of solids (C2/L34-65, C3/L43-55, Fig. 2B, an inverted pyramidal configuration with a plurality of V-shaped walls defining an interior area and that terminate at an outlet and that is operable for downward settling of the solids from the slurry), and recycling the drilling fluids by reinserting the fluids from a recovery shaker to the recovery tank (C5/L1-9). Additionally, Corne teaches an apparatus for separating solids from liquids comprising a series of settling tanks in the shape of inverted pyramids with baffle plates, the tanks connected together by overflow passages, with each tank having a means for draining (outlets from respective compartments (claim 1, p 2 L25-80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reed’s taught system to include inverse pyramidal tanks as disclosed by Southall and Corne, with drains for each tank as taught by Corne as the use of pyramidal base tanks is known in the art as shown by Southall and Corne, according to Corne the system allows practically all of the mud and heavier particles to be taken off in the earlier stages and extremely clear liquid is secured (p. 2 L125-130), and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
With respect to claim 15, the system as in claim 14, is taught above. Reed teaches the desander and desilter output a light stream back into the mud pit (C4/L42-52) and routes heavy stream back to the first compartment (C4/L52-C5/L52, Fig. 2, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 16, the system as in claim 14, is taught above. See 112 interpretation and rejections above. Reed teaches gas buster 14 and shakers 16/18 and degasser 28 (C4/L1-37, Fig. 2, a shaker upstream of said plurality of cleaning compartments and in fluid communication with said inlet so as to receive said slurry, and venting or burning a gaseous portion of said slurry and to deposit a liquid portion of said slurry into said plurality of cleaning compartments. While Reed does not explicitly teach a shaker configured to vent or burn a gaseous portion, shakers are typically open to the air and some venting would likely occur, absent clarification of how the shaker is configured, the art reads on the claim language.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Strong US 20050279715, similar to Reed
Willis US 5814230 similar system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANNIE MCDERMOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-4479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/JEANNIE MCDERMOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777