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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s claims, filed on 04/28/2026.
Claims 1, 9, 14, and 39-42 have been amended.
Claims 2, 10-12, 15-16, and 20-37 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-9, 13-14, 17-19, and 38-42 are currently pending and have been examined.
Oath/Declaration
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 04/28/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 9 and 38-42 based upon a specific reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the last Office action. However; upon further consideration, the amendments introduce new issues that a new ground(s) of rejection is made. The declaration provides opinion evidence that Drenth (US2013/0105227) would have included a grease port, notwithstanding the absence of an explicit recitation of the grease port in the written description of the reference. The affidavit provides an opinion that a grease port would be part of the disclosed assembly and does not provide factual evidence. This opinion has been considered and found persuasive in part; however, the thrust of the rejection is based upon a substitution of solid oil self-lubricating bearings. The substitution would inherently eliminate the need for a grease port or fitting as the bearing member deposits oil and absorbs oil to control the amount of oil suppled to the bearing surface, therefore; the self-lubricating bearing does not require external lubrication by a grease port. The declaration further asserts an opinion that at the time of the claimed invention, only two means of providing lubrication to a core barrel head assembly existed, using drilling fluid or enclosing the bearing in a housing with grease ports, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have substituted solid oil self-lubricating bearings wherein the substitution would inherently eliminate the need for a grease port. This opinion has been considered and found not persuasive as solid oil self-lubricating bearings, as taught by Statz or Kverel, were in existence well prior to the filing date of the instant case and such a substitution would represent the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-9, 13-14, 17-19, and 38-42 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10/28/2025. Applicant' s argument with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1, 3-9, 13-14, 17-19, and 38-42 have been considered and found persuasive; therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, the amendments introduce new issues that a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
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 1, 3, 5, 9, 13-14, 18-19, and 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach (US7,314,101) in view of Statz (US4,361,367).
Claim 1. Beach discloses: a core sampling tool (Fig. 1) comprising:
a core barrel having a proximal end (20 core tube, Fig. 1); and
a core barrel head assembly coupled to the proximal end of the core barrel (10 inner core barrel head assembly, Fig. 1), wherein the core barrel head assembly comprises:
a spindle (96 hollow spindle, Fig. 1); and
a bearing housing (104 bearing housing, Fig. 1); and
at least one bearing (106 thrust bearing or 108 needle bearing, Fig. 1) enclosed within the bearing housing, wherein bearing rotationally engages the spindle (106 and 108 are enclosed within 104 and coupled to 96, Fig. 1), and
the bearing housing does not comprise a grease port or a grease fitting (104 does not comprise a grease port or fitting; Fig. 1)
Beach does not disclose: each solid oil self-lubricating bearing of the at least one solid oil self-lubricating bearing comprises an oil-saturated polymer material that is molded into a bearing structure.
Statz discloses a self-lubricating bearing including a bearing member body comprised of sintered powdered metal and oil impregnated polymer wherein the polymer deposits oil and absorbs oil to control the amount of oil suppled to the bearing surfaces.
Statz teaches: one solid oil self-lubricating bearing comprises an oil-saturated polymer material that is molded into a bearing structure (14 bearing, Fig. 1; molded polymer material impregnated with oil; Col. 2, line 63 – Col. 3, line 15; deposits oil and absorbs oil to control the amount of oil suppled to the bearing surfaces; Col. 1, lines 49-60).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the bearing of Beach with the solid oil self-lubricating bearings of Statz with a reasonable expectation of success as suggested by Statz (Col. 2, line 63 – Col. 3, line 15) because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding the limitation: the bearing housing does not comprise a grease port or a grease fitting, Beach is silent on the bearing housing including a grease port or fitting as Beach does not illustrate or disclose any such feature. Therefore, the claim limitation is inherently met. The substitution of the bearing of Beach with the solid oil self-lubricating bearings of Statz would inherently eliminate the need for a grease port or fitting as the bearing member deposits oil and absorbs oil to control the amount of oil suppled to the bearing surface (Statz teaches away from the complexity required for the use of oil or grease lubrication; [Background]), therefor; the self-lubricating bearing of Statz does not require external lubrication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a grease port or fitting would not be necessary in the modified assembly.
Claim 3. Beach in view of Statz teach: the core sampling tool of claim 1, the spindle is a hollow spindle (Beach: 96 hollow spindle, Fig. 1) that defines a bore (Beach: illustrated bore through 96, Fig. 1) that extends axially through the spindle.
Claim 5. Beach in view of Statz teach: the core sampling tool of claim 3, the core barrel head assembly further comprises a check valve assembly positioned proximal of the hollow spindle (Beach: 126 ball, 94 bypass seat; Fig. 2).
Claim 9. Beach discloses: a core barrel head assembly (10 inner core barrel head assembly, Fig. 1) configured for coupling to a core barrel (13 core barrel, Fig. 1), the core barrel head assembly comprising:
an elongate tube body (124 housing, Fig. 1) having a proximal end and a distal end;
a spindle subassembly (96 spindle, Fig. 1)
a bearing subassembly (structure of 104 bearing assembly, 108 and 106 bearings; Fig. 1) configured to engage the proximal end of the elongate tube body (104 engages proximal end of 124), the bearing subassembly comprising a bearing housing (104 houses 108, Fig. 1), and bearing rotationally engages the spindle subassembly (108 engages 96 rotationally, Fig. 1),
the bearing housing does not comprise a grease port or a grease fitting (104 does not comprise a grease port or fitting; Fig. 1).
Beach does not disclose: each solid oil self-lubricating bearing of the at least one solid oil self-lubricating bearing comprises an oil-saturated polymer material that is molded into a bearing structure, wherein each solid oil self-lubricating bearing of the at least one solid oil self-lubricating bearing and the bearing housing does not comprise a grease port or a grease fitting.
Statz discloses a self-lubricating bearing including a bearing member body comprised of sintered powdered metal and oil impregnated polymer.
Statz further teaches: one solid oil self-lubricating bearing comprises an oil-saturated polymer material that is molded into a bearing structure (14 bearing, Fig. 1; molded polymer material impregnated with oil; Col. 2, line 63 – Col. 3, line 15).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the bearing of Beach with the solid oil self-lubricating bearings of Statz with a reasonable expectation of success as suggested by Statz (Col. 2, line 63 – Col. 3, line 15) because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding the limitation: the bearing housing does not comprise a grease port or a grease fitting, Beach is silent on the bearing housing including a grease port or fitting as Beach does not illustrate or disclose any such feature. Therefore, the claim limitation is inherently met. The substitution of the bearing of Beach with the solid oil self-lubricating bearings of Statz would inherently eliminate the need for a grease port or fitting as the bearing member deposits oil and absorbs oil to control the amount of oil suppled to the bearing surface (Statz teaches away from the complexity required for the use of oil or grease lubrication; [Background]), therefor; the self-lubricating bearing of Statz does not require external lubrication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a grease port or fitting would not be necessary in the modified assembly.
Claim 13. Beach in view of Statz teach: A method comprising:
advancing a core sampling tool within a formation (Beach: implicit to core drilling; ground cut up by the drill; Col. 1, lines 20-30), the core sampling tool comprising the core barrel head assembly of claim 9 and a core barrel (see previously rejected claim 9), wherein the core barrel head assembly is coupled to a proximal end of the core barrel (Beach: Fig. 1); and
receiving core within the core barrel (Beach: receiving a core sample of the ground being cut by the drill; Col. 1, lines 20-30),
wherein the method does not comprise delivering grease to or within the core barrel head assembly (see previously rejected claim 9).
Claim 14. Beach in view of Statz teach: The method of claim 1, wherein the core barrel head assembly further comprises:
an elongate tube body having an outer surface, an interior cavity, a proximal end, and a distal end (Beach: 24 latch body, Fig. 1); and
a valve body that is attached to the elongate tube body (Beach: 90 lower latch body, Fig. 1).
Claim 18. Beach in view of Statz teach: a drilling system (Beach: Fig. 1) comprising:
a drill string (Beach: 14 drill rod, Fig. 1) having:
a drill bit at a distal end of the drill string (Beach: implicit to core drilling; ground cut up by the drill; Col. 1, lines 20-30);
the core sampling tool of claim 1 (see previously rejected claim 1), wherein the core barrel head assembly has a distal end, and wherein the core barrel has a distal end (Beach; Fig. 1; implicit to core barrel); and
a core lifter case at the distal end of the core barrel (Beach: implicit to receiving a core sample; Col. 1, lines 20-30).
Claim 19. Beach in view of Statz teach: a method comprising: positioning the drill string of the system of claim 18 within a borehole; and receiving a core sample within the core barrel (Beach: implicit to core drilling; receiving a core sample; Col. 1, lines 20-30)
Claim 38. Beach in view of Statz teach: The core barrel head assembly of claim 9, further comprising a check valve subassembly (Beach: 126 ball, 90 lower latch body, 94 bypass seat; Fig. 1), wherein the check valve subassembly engages the distal end of the elongate tube body (Beach: 126, 90, 94 engages at the distal end of 24, Fig. 1) .
Claim 39. Beach in view of Statz teach: The core barrel head assembly of claim 9, wherein the spindle subassembly comprises a hollow spindle (see previously rejected claim 3).
Beach in view of Statz teach does not explicitly teach: having an inner diameter of at least 5/8 inch.
Regarding the limitation: spindle having an inner diameter of at least 5/8 inch; Beach in view of Statz does not explicitly teach. Beach does disclose a spindle having an inner diameter, except for the specific value recited in claim 9 of 5/8 inch. As shown in Fig. 1, the hollow spindle does have a bore extending through the entire length of spindle. The size of the bore is recognized as a result effective variable since the size affects known operational characteristics such as fluid flow capacity, fluid flow pressures and structural strength. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have an opening of at least 5/8 inch to allow for sufficient fluid flow rates, pressure drops or to achieve strength requirements, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, 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.
Claim 40. Beach discloses: A core sampling tool (Fig. 1) comprising:
a core barrel having a proximal end (20 core tube, Fig. 1); and
a core barrel head assembly coupled to the proximal end of the core barrel (10 inner core barrel head assembly, Fig. 1), wherein the core barrel head assembly comprises:
a spindle having a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the spindle has a continuous, uninterrupted inner surface that defines a bore extending from the proximal end of the spindle to the distal end of the spindle (96 hollow spindle, Fig. 1), wherein the bore is configured to communicate fluid between the proximal end of the spindle and the distal end of the spindle (96 is hollow and fluid would implicitly communicate across the length, Fig. 1); and
a bearing subassembly (108 needle bearing and structure enclosing 108 is the bearing housing, Fig. 1); wherein the bearing subassembly comprises a bearing housing and at least one bearing enclosed within the bearing housing (108 is enclosed within structure enclosing 108, Fig. 1),
wherein bearing rotationally engages the spindle (108 engages 96, Fig. 1)
wherein the bearing housing does not comprise a grease port or a grease fitting (structure enclosing 108 does not comprise a grease port or fitting; Fig. 1).
Beach does not disclose: solid oil self-lubricating bearing of the at least one solid oil self- lubricating bearing comprises an oil-saturated polymer material that is molded into a bearing structure.
Statz discloses a self-lubricating bearing including a bearing member body comprised of sintered powdered metal and oil impregnated polymer wherein polymer deposits oil and absorbs oil to control the amount of oil suppled to the bearing surfaces.
Statz teaches: one solid oil self-lubricating bearing comprises an oil-saturated polymer material that is molded into a bearing structure (14 bearing, Fig. 1; molded polymer material impregnated with oil; Col. 2, line 63 – Col. 3, line 15; deposits oil and absorbs oil to control the amount of oil suppled to the bearing surfaces; Col. 1, lines 49-60).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the bearing of Beach with the solid oil self-lubricating bearings of Statz with a reasonable expectation of success as suggested by Statz (Col. 2, line 63 – Col. 3, line 15) because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding the limitation: the bearing housing does not comprise a grease port or a grease fitting, Beach is silent on the bearing housing including a grease port or fitting as Beach does not illustrate or disclose any such feature. Therefore, the claim limitation is inherently met. The substitution of the bearing of Beach with the solid oil self-lubricating bearings of Statz would inherently eliminate the need for a grease port or fitting as the bearing member deposits oil and absorbs oil to control the amount of oil suppled to the bearing surface (Statz teaches away from the complexity required for the use of oil or grease lubrication; [Background]), therefor; the self-lubricating bearing of Statz does not require external lubrication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a grease port or fitting would not be necessary in the modified assembly.
Claim 41. Beach in view of Statz teach: The core sampling tool of claim 40, further comprising:
a housing (Beach: 14 drill string, Fig. 1);
elongate tube body (Beach: 124 bearing housing, Fig. 1) coupled to the housing (Beach: 124 bearing housing is coupled to the structure enclosing 108); and
a bushing (Beach: 106 thrust bearing, Fig. 1) received within the elongate tube body (Beach: 106 is withing 124, Fig. 1);
wherein at least a portion of the spindle is received within the elongate tube body, and wherein the spindle is slidably received within the bushing, wherein the bushing is configured to permit axial movement of the spindle relative to the elongate tube body (Beach: Fig. 1).
Claim 42. Beach in view of Statz teach: The core sampling tool of claim 40, further comprising a spring that is configured to bias the spindle away distally relative to the housing (Beach: 120 spring, Fig. 1), wherein the housing and the elongate tube body surround the spring (Beach: 14 and 124 surround the spring, Fig. 1).
Claims 4, 6, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach (US7,314,101) in view of Statz (US4,361,367) and further in view of McLeod et al. (US2019/0024468)
Claim 4. Beach in view of Statz teach: the core sampling tool of claim 3.
Beach in view of Statz does not teach: the core barrel head assembly further comprises a check valve assembly positioned distal of the hollow spindle.
McLeod discloses an inner core barrel assembly for use with a drill string of a core drill comprising of check valve positioned at the distal end of a spindle.
McLeod teaches: a check valve assembly (328 valve ball, 326: valve seat; Fig. 9b) positioned distal of the hollow spindle (218 spindle, Fig. 9b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the core drilling system of Beach in view of Statz by including a check valve as taught by McLeod with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent fluid from flowing into the system during drilling which may wash away the collected core sample as taught by McLeod ([0192]).
Claim 6. Beach in view of Statz teach: the core sampling tool of claim 1.
Beach in view of Statz does not teach: wherein the spindle comprises a solid spindle that does not define an axial bore extending through the spindle.
McLeod further teaches: wherein the spindle comprises a solid spindle that does not define an axial bore extending through the spindle (36 lockable spindle, Fig. 4a-4b; spindle is illustrated as solid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the core drilling system of Beach in view of Statz by including a solid spindle as taught by McLeod with a reasonable expectation of success in order to lock the rotational position of the head assembly to the core barrel as taught by McLeod ([0096]).
Claim 18. Beach in view of Statz teach: a drilling system (Beach: Fig. 1) comprising:
a drill string (Beach: 14 drill rod, Fig. 1) and the core sampling tool of claim 1, wherein the core barrel head assembly has a distal end, and wherein the core barrel has a distal end (Beach; Fig. 1; implicit to core barrel)
Beach in view of Statz does not explicitly disclose: a drill bit at a distal end of the drill string; and a core lifter case at the distal end of the core barrel.
McLeod discloses an inner core barrel assembly for use with a drill string of a core drill.
McLeod further teaches: a drill bit (408: drill bit, Fig. 14b) at a distal end of the drill string; and
a core lifter case (McLeod: 400 core lifter, Fig. 13-14) at the distal end of the core barrel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the core drilling system of Beach in view of Statz by including a core drill bit and core lifter case as taught by McLeod with a reasonable expectation of success in order drill and capture a core sample as taught by McLeod (Fig. 13-14).
Claim 19. Beach in view of Statz teach and further in view of McLeod teach: a method comprising: positioning the drill string of the system of claim 18 (see previously rejected claim 18) within a borehole (Mcleod: borehole survey, [title, abstract]); and receiving a core sample within the core barrel (McLeod: [0182-0208])
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach (US7,314,101) in view of Statz (US4,361,367) and further in view of Salvador (US10,704,349)
Claim 6. Beach in view of Statz teach: the core sampling tool of claim 1.
Beach in view of Statz does not teach: wherein the spindle comprises a solid spindle that does not define an axial bore extending through the spindle.
Salvador discloses a core barrel head assembly comprising of a solid spindle and check valves proximal and distal of the spindle.
Salvador teaches: wherein the spindle comprises a solid spindle that does not define an axial bore extending through the spindle (2 spindle, Fig. 1; spindle is illustrated as solid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Beach in view of Statz by incorporating a solid spindle and a check valve distal of the spindle as taught by Salvador with a reasonable expectation of success in order to control fluid flow or pressure into and out of the tool as taught by Salvador (Col. 11, lines 27-39).
Claim 7. Beach in view of Statz and further in view of Salavdor teach: The core sampling tool of claim 6, wherein the core barrel head assembly further comprises a check valve (Salvador: 68 check valve body, Fig. 1) assembly positioned distal of the solid spindle (Salvador: 2 spindle, Fig. 1).
Claim 8. Beach in view of Statz and further in view of Salvador teach: The core sampling tool of claim 6. the core barrel head assembly further comprises a check valve assembly (Salvador: 64 lower body, Fig. 2; lower body may house valve or valves components; Col. 10, line 65 - Col. 11, line 2) positioned proximal of the solid spindle (Fig. 2).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach (US7,314,101) in view of Statz (US4,361,367) and further in view of Gaylard et al. (CA3055085).
Claim 17. Beach in view of Statz: The core sampling tool of claim 14.
Beach in view of Statz does not teach: the core barrel head assembly further comprises:
an electronics compartment having an outer surface, wherein
the valve body defines an interior cavity, wherein
the electronics compartment is disposed within the interior cavity of the valve body,
wherein the electronics compartment is attached to the valve body so that the interior surface of the interior cavity of the valve body and the outer surface of the electronics department define a fluid passage,
wherein the valve body, the electronics compartment, or a combination of at least one interior surface of the valve body and at least one exterior surface of the electronics compartment defines at least one opening for providing fluid communication between the fluid passage and a distal end of the valve body.
Gaylard discloses a check valve for a core barrel assembly comprising of a data acquisition system within a cavity of the valve where fluid flows through an annulus formed by the exterior of the data acquisition system and the interior cavity in the valve.
Gaylard teaches: an electronics compartment (60 data acquisition system, Fig. 3b) having an outer surface (outers surface of 34 central tubular body, Fig. 3b), wherein
the valve body (18 check valve, Fig. 3b) defines an interior cavity (annular area between 16 inner core and exterior of 60), wherein
the electronics compartment is disposed within the interior cavity of the valve body (Fig. 3b),
wherein the electronics compartment is attached to the valve body so that the interior surface of the interior cavity of the valve body and the outer surface of the electronics department define a fluid passage (FP fluid flow path, Fig. 3b),
wherein the valve body, the electronics compartment, or a combination of at least one interior surface of the valve body and at least one exterior surface of the electronics compartment defines at least one opening for providing fluid communication between the fluid passage and a distal end of the valve body (Fig. 3b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Beach in view of Statz by incorporating the data acquisition system into the valve body as taught by Gaylard with a reasonable expectation of success in order to acquire data pertaining to the physical condition exterior of the valve of the as taught by Gaylard (Pg. 8, lines 4-10).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Craig whose telephone number is (571)270-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
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.
/DANIEL T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights