DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 13 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, change “the casing the well” to -the casing in the well-.
In claim 13, line 1, change “claim 9, , wherein” to -claim 9, wherein-.
In claim 19, line 1, change “claim 16, , wherein” to -claim 16, wherein-.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a process (claim 1, a method), or a manufacture (claim 9, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium), a machine (claim 16, a system), which are statutory categories.
However, evaluating claim 1, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed
to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using the grouping of a mathematical relationship/mental process. The limitations include:
receiving data associated with a rig, the data comprising electronic drilling recorder (EDR) data, wherein the EDR data comprises hook load, string depth, revolutions-per-minute (RPM), torque, and block height;
determining, using the EDR data, a rig state associated with the rig; and
determining, using the EDR data, the rig state, or a combination thereof, casing installation data;
providing the casing installation data on an interactive visualization platform on a display.
The claim recites an abstract idea in the form of mental processes, including collecting information, analyzing information, and presenting information. These limitations describe observations, evaluations, classifications, and reporting of results that can practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional element of “receiving data associated with a rig, the data comprising electronic drilling recorder (EDR) data, wherein the EDR data comprises hook load, string depth, revolutions-per-minute (RPM), torque, and block height” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data that is not sufficient to integrate the claim into a particular practical application. The act of data gathering is considered insufficient to elevate the claim to a practical application.
The limitations merely limits the abstract idea to a particular field of use and do not provide a technological improvement or practical application. Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-8 do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above. None of the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, improve the functioning of a computer or another technology, or provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and presenting information. Accordingly, the dependent claims do not render the claims patent eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected 35 USC § 101 for the same rationale as in claim
1.
The additional elements (claim 9 and 16), the element of “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “processor,” and memory” are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)).
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 10-15 and 17-20, either dependent from 9 or 16, do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above. None of the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, improve the functioning of a computer or another technology, or provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and presenting information. Accordingly, the dependent claims do not render the claims patent eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created
doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 16, and 23, respectively, of Patent No. US 11,920,456. An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 9, and 16 are anticipated or fall entirely within the scope of claims 9, 16 and 23 of Patent No. US 11,920,456.
Claim 2 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of Patent No. US 11,920,456. An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 is anticipated or fall entirely within the scope of claim 2 of Patent No. US 11,920,456.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 11, and 18, respectively, of Patent No. US 11,920,456. An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 3, 10, and 17 is anticipated or fall entirely within the scope of claims 4, 11, and 18, respectively, of Patent No. US 11,920,456.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5, 12, and 19, respectively, of Patent No. US 11,920,456. An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 4, 11, and 18 is anticipated or fall entirely within the scope of claims 5, 12, and 19, respectively, of Patent No. US 11,920,456.
Claims 5, 14 and 20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 15, and 22, respectively, of Patent No. US 11,920,456. An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 5, 14 and 20 are anticipated or fall entirely within the scope of claims 8, 15, and 22, respectively, of Patent No. US 11,920,456.
Claim 12 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Patent No. US 11,920,456. An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 is anticipated or fall entirely within the scope of claim 13 of Patent No. US 11,920,456.
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, 2, 4, 9. 11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Bryant et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0128114) (hereinafter Bryant) in view of Khare et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0371344) (hereinafter Khare).
As per claims 1, 9 and 16, Bryant teaches receiving data associated with a rig, the data comprising electronic drilling recorder (EDR) data, wherein the EDR data comprises hook load, string depth, revolutions-per-minute (RPM), torque, and block height (see ¶¶ [0004], [0043], [0055], [0059]-[0060], and Table 1); and determining, using the EDR data, the rig state, or a combination thereof, casing installation data (see ¶¶ [0004], [0079], Tables 2 and 3).
While Bryant teaches multiple rig operating modes including drilling, washing, reaming, short trip, pulling out of hole/tripping in hole, circulation, and casing-running mode identified as “Run Csg” (see ¶ [0079] and Tables 2 and 3), Bryant fails to explicitly teach determining, using the EDR data, a rig state associated with the rig.
Khare teaches receiving sensor measurements from rig sensors, including hookload, sensors, block position, pressure sensors, torque sensors, and depth measurements (see ¶¶ [0004] and [0020]). Khare further teaches processing the received sensor measurement to compute rig state/activity information (see ¶ [0004]), calculating rig states and rig activities from the received measurements (see ¶ [0017]), and processing the sensor data to obtain a rig state describing the current operation of the drilling rig, such as drilling, reaming, tripping, rotating, circulating, or stationary operations (see ¶ [0021] and Table 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the drilling monitoring system of Bryant to incorporate the rig-state determination techniques of Khare because Khare explicitly teaches processing rig sensor measurements to compute rig-state/activity information and automatically generate rig activity reports based on the determined rig states. Incorporating such rig-state determination into the monitoring system of Bryant would have enabled the drilling measurements acquired by the instrument top sub to be automatically associated with the current rig operation, including the casing running (“Run Csg”) mode disclosed by Bryant, thereby reducing on manual identification of rig activities and improving the monitoring, categorization, reporting, and management of rig operations.
As modified, the combined system receives drilling data including hookload, depth, RPM, torque, and block height as taught by Bryant and automatically determines a rig state from those measurements as taught by Khare. Since Bryant explicitly a casing-running operating mode (“Run Csg”), and further teaches displaying drilling measurements obtained during rig operations (see ¶¶ [0032], [0068], [0072], [0074], and [0079]), (the examiner notes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, drilling measurements acquired, processed, and displayed while rig is operating in the disclosed casing-running mode are data associated with a casing installation operation and therefore constitute casing installation data).
Moreover, Bryant teaches providing such drilling data to a user interface executing on a display device, wherein the data may be processed, recorded, displayed, and organized into current and historical logs (see ¶ [0074]). Therefore, the combination of Bryant and Khare teaches or at least suggests receiving EDR data including hookload, string depth, RPM, torque, and block height, determining a rig state using the EDR data, determining casing installation data using EDR data and the determined fig state, and providing the casing installation data on an interactive visualization platform on a display, as claimed.
As per claim 2, the combination of Bryant and Khare teaches the system as stated above. Khare further teaches that the disclosed monitoring and reporting method is applicable from initiation of drilling through completion of the well, including casing activities (see ¶ [0012]), and further teaches that the disclosed embodiments may be applied to substantially all rig activities including drilling, casing, and completion activities (see ¶ [0032]). Moreover, Bryant identifies a Run Csg operating mode (see ¶ [0079]). Therefore, the combination teaches performing the claimed monitoring method while installing casing in the well, as recited in claim 2.
As per claims 4, 11 and 18, the combination of Bryant and Khare teaches the system as stated above. Khare further teaches that the determined rig state may include operational states such as Run in, Ream, Back Ream, In Slips, Stationary, and activities including making connection while drilling, each of which corresponds to a rig state selected from the recited group (see ¶¶ [0021]-[0031] and Table 1). Because claim 4 merely requires that the determined rig state be selected from the recited Markush group, the disclosure of these corresponding rig states satisfies the claimed limitation.
Claims 3, 7, 8, 10, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Bryant in view of Khare and further in view of Van Vliet et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0355063) (hereinafter Van Vliet).
As per claims 3, 10, and 17, the combination of Bryant and Khare teaches the system as stated above except that the data associated with the rig comprises block weight.
Van Vliet teaches that information about the drilling rig used for data acquisition from rig sensors includes block weight, along with other drilling rig information used for tubular running operations (see ¶ [0078]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include block weight among the rig data received by the monitoring system of the combined references because Van Vliet teaches block weight is a conventional drilling rig parameter used during tubular running operations to support data acquisition and modeling of loads acting on the running string, thereby improving the characterization and monitoring of tubular running operation.
As per claims 7 and 15, the combination of Bryant and Khare teaches the system as stated above except that the casing installation data comprises casing installation guidelines.
Van Vliet teaches generating damage indicators during tubular running operations and communicating those indicators to the user s that corrective actions may be taken (see Abstract). The disclosed corrective actions include changing axial load, changing torque, changing running rate, changing rotation rate, adding lubricant, adding centralizers, and pulling the running string from the well (see ¶¶ [0021]-[0027]). Although Van Vliet refers to these as corrective actions rather than installation guidelines, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to present such recommended corrective actions as casing installation guidelines because both provide operational guidance to the user regarding how the tubular running operation should be conducted in response to monitored operating conditions. Presenting recommended operational actions as installation guidelines would improve operator decision-making, promote consistent execution of tubular running operation, and reduce the likelihood of excessive loading or damage to the running string.
As per claim 8, the combination of Bryant and Khare teaches the system as stated above except that the casing installation data comprises well trajectory data comprising at least one of well position, well depth, or dogleg severity (DLS).
Van Vliet teaches that information used during tubular running operations (TRO) includes well survey information, along with hole sizes and lengths, and that such wellbore information is used together with running-string information to perform torque-and-drag analysis (TDA) (see ¶ [0078]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a well survey provides the trajectory of the wellbore, including position, well depth, and parameters from which dogleg severity is determined. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include well trajectory information as part of the casing installation data of the combined system because torque-and-drag analysis during casing installation depends upon the geometry of the wellbore, and incorporating trajectory information would improve the accuracy of monitoring, load estimation, and operator decision-making during running operations.
Claims 5, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Bryant in view of Khare and further in view of Forshaw et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0340856) (hereinafter Forshaw).
As per claims 5, 14 and 120, the combination of Bryant and Khare teaches the system as stated above except that the casing installation data comprises a plot of hook load vs depth or a plot of surface torque vs depth.
Forshaw displaying measured hookload versus depth during torque-and-drag monitoring performed in well construction operations (see ¶ [0053]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hook versus depth visualization of Forshaw into the monitoring system of Bryant, as modified by Khare, because Forshaw teaches that plotting measured hookload versus depth provides a useful visualization for evaluating torque-and-drag conditions during well construction operations, thereby improving operator interpretation of drilling and tubular-running data.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Bryant in view of Khare and further in view of Samuel et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0404318) (hereinafter Samuel).
As per claims 6, 13 and 19, the combination of Bryant and Khare teaches the system as stated above except that the casing installation data comprises a plot of cumulative fatigue vs depth.
Samuel teaches providing graphical visualizations of drilling parameters, wherein a user may select and display graphs and reports, and wherein the plotted data may be used to graph effective tension, torque, fatigue, or stress at various depths (see ¶ [0059]). Thus, Samuel teaches displaying a plot of fatigue as a function of depth during well construction operations.
Although Samuel does not explicitly describe the plotted fatigue as “cumulative” fatigue, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to present the fatigue information as cumulative fatigue versus depth because fatigue damage in drill strings and tubular strings is conventionally evaluated as accumulated damage resulting from repeated loading cycles over the course of drilling or tubular running operations. Displaying cumulative fatigue as a function of depth represents a predictable use of known engineering principles to convey the progressive accumulation of fatigue damage along the well path and provides operators with a more meaningful assessment of component life than instantaneous fatigue values. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the graphical display of Samuel to present cumulative fatigue versus depth because doing so would improve the operator’s ability to identify regions of increased fatigue accumulation, evaluate the remaining useful life of the running string, and make operational decisions to avoid component failure, thereby improving the monitoring and management of well construction operations.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant in
view of Khare and further in view of Hutchinson (Pub. No. US 2005/0087367).
As per claim 12, the combination of Bryant and Khare teaches the system as stated above except that the operations comprising activating an alarm based on the EDR data.
Hutchinson teaches generating a warning signal and setting an alarm in response to measured drilling parameters indicating an unsafe drilling condition (see Abstract and ¶¶ [0012], [0013], [0015], and [0051]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the alarm-generation techniques of Hutchinson into the drilling monitoring system of Bryant, as modified by Khare, because Hutchinson teaches that automatically alerting the operator when monitored drilling parameters indicate potentially unsafe operating conditions reduces reliance on continuous manual monitoring and their changes over time. Incorporating these alarm-generation techniques into the monitoring system of Bryant, as modified by Khare would therefore have predictably improved the monitoring of drilling and casing-running operations by automatically notifying the operator when monitored drilling parameters indicate potentially unsafe operating conditions.
Prior art
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure:
Zheng et al. [‘423] discloses a method for commissioning a drilling rig. The method includes detecting a first plurality of components of a drilling rig control system to control a drilling operation, obtaining a knowledge graph comprising a plurality of nodes corresponding to the first plurality of components, and a plurality of links connecting the plurality of nodes, wherein each of the plurality of links represents at least a target measure of data communication and resource utilization of each pair of components of the first plurality of components, and performing, by a drilling rig commissioning system and based on the knowledge graph, a management task of the drilling rig control system.
Du Castel et al. [‘114] discloses a casing deployment apparatus includes a processing resource with a signal pattern recognition engine unit, a tubular measurement unit and a decision unit. A first sensor input and a second sensor input are attached to the pattern recognition unit and receive first sensor data and second sensor data corresponding to first and second time-varying sensor signals. The pattern recognition unit analyzes a characteristic of the first sensor data to determine whether the characteristic is substantially consistent with a first expected characteristic of the first sensor data associated with deployment of casing in a borehole. The tubular measurement unit analyzes a characteristic of the second sensor data in order to determine whether the characteristic is substantially consistent with a second expected characteristic of the second sensor data associated with the deployment of the casing.
Benson et al. [‘230] discloses a system and method for surface steerable drilling are provided. In one example, the method includes monitoring operating parameters for drilling rig equipment and bottom hole assembly (BHA) equipment for a BHA, where the operating parameters control the drilling rig equipment and BHA equipment. The method includes receiving current inputs corresponding to performance data of the drilling rig equipment and BHA equipment during a drilling operation and determining that an amount of change between the current inputs and corresponding previously received inputs exceeds a defined threshold. The method further includes determining whether a modification to the operating parameters has occurred that would result in the amount of change exceeding the defined threshold and identifying that a problem exists in at least one of the drilling rig equipment and BA equipment if no modification has occurred to the operating parameters. The method includes performing a defined action if a problem exists.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights