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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on page 7 directed towards the previous 112(a) rejections,
The 112(a) rejections of Claims 12 and 13 are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
With regard to the arguments on pages 7-13 directed towards the previous 112(b) rejections,
As to applicant’s first point, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the issue here is not overcomplicated, and is instead only be treated as claimed. Applicant expressly recites a plurality of addends, and “wherein each of the plurality of addends is directly coupled to one or more adjacent addends within the array.” As such, applicant is reciting one or more adjacent addends, and thus reasonably includes plural pairs of addends. Applicant then recites “the pair of adjacent addends” on lines 8-9. Because applicant initially recites plural pairs of adjacent addends, and because the original disclosure also discloses plural pairs of adjacent addends, claiming “the pair of adjacent addends” is indefinite, because it can reasonably refer to more than one pair of adjacent addends, and person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably identify which pair this phrase is referencing. Such an issue can be remedied with different claim language, such as by respectfully referring back to those pairs applicant intends to reference, or to include all addends, if properly supported, such as by claiming that the connecting and disconnecting is for each of the pairs of adjacent addends instead of just “the pair” as now claimed.
As to applicant’s second point,
Applicant again argues that the Office Action overcomplicates things, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the Examiner is applying the plain and ordinary meaning in the art. Applicant argues that a pad is defined as thin flat mat or cushion, but this, respectfully, is not the plain and ordinary meaning in the geophysical art for a pad. In the geophysical art, a pad is well-known to be a structure on which an electrode or other antenna is located, for example as seen in paragraph [0051] of US 2015/0355372 to Bloemenkamp et al, or US 2003/0164705 to Cheung et al. which explains that pad 3 is an insulative material (Paragraph [0023]) with electrodes located on the pad (Paragraph [0024]). This is further expressly defined in the Schlumberger “Explore the Energy Glossary” which defines a pad “That part of a wireline logging tool that is pressed firmly against the borehole wall. The pad holds sensors that are focused in one direction and must be as close as possible to the borehole wall” (see https://glossary.slb.com/en/terms/p/pad).
While a pad can be conductive, the issue here is that a pad is distinct from the electrodes (or antennas as is well-known in the art), and thus the electrodes, being electrical devices, must be insulated against any other nearby electrical components they can come into contact with, or else, like any wire, they will be shorted and stop functioning. This issue is not an overcomplication, but rather is merely addressing an issue that when an electrode and pad are disclosed to be distinct feature, such as where applicant expressly discloses “ the configurable electrode sensor is mounted on a pad” in paragraph [0105]. The Examiner’s interpretation of the claim feature is therefore consistent with the disclosure and the plain and ordinary meaning in the art of a pad, where the pad is not reasonably “formed from” but rather is mere mounted on a pad. Claiming that an electrode or antenna is “formed from” the pad is, respectfully, not consistent with the disclosure or the plain and ordinary meaning of a pad in the art.
As to Claim 5,
The previous rejection is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
As to Claim 6,
The Examiner notes that while no specific arguments are presented, the previously raised issue remains and is repeated below. The Examiner acknowledges applicant’s intent in the claim to refer to each respective addend and each respective addend control line, but the claim, respectfully, does not recite such an interpretation. Applicant initially recites that each addend is electrically coupled through an addend control line, thus creating plural addend control lines. Applicant does not follow that language with a recitation such as, for each, where“for each respective addends of the addends, the addend controller is configured to…,” and instead refers back to those features previously recited, such as by reciting “the addend” on line 3 or “the addend control line” on line 4. Because plural addends and addend control lines have been previously recited, it is unclear which addends or addend control lines are being referenced, regardless of intent, because the claim language as claimed can reasonably refer to any combination of addends and addend control lines. Such an issue can be remedied by using language that claims what applicant intends, such as reciting that “for each respective addend of the addends,” or using the term “respective” in the appropriate locations to make clear that the features in the claim are intended for a each respective addend.
As to Claim 7,
The previous rejection is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
As to Claim 12,
The previous rejection is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
As to Claim 13,
The previous rejection is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
As to Claim 16,
As to applicant’s first point, the Examiner respectfully notes that an electrode is well-known to be an antenna, and furthermore, applicant does not reasonably show a distinction of the manner in which any addends are connected to form an electrode as opposed to an antenna. While applicant argues these terms are notoriously well-known and points to many paragraphs of the disclosure, applicant, respectfully, does not reasonably provide any evidence to reasonably explanation to address the distinction between addends forming an antenna, as opposed to addends forming an electrode. The addends are the same regardless of the manner in which they are connected, and as best understood, they will also form an electrode regardless of the manner in which they are connected.
US 2017/0362931 to Homan et al. explains “at least one electric dipole antenna comprising a pair of electrodes” in Claim 1. US 2007/0075708 to Reddig et al. explains “The dipole antenna comprises a first electrode mounted on a cable and located near the current source and a second electrode mounted on a cable” in paragraph [0012]. US 2016/0298448 to Heisig et al. explains “In some embodiments, antenna 140 may be a loop antenna. In some embodiments, antenna 140 may be a toroidal antenna, a gap antenna or an electrode antenna such as a ring, strip or button electrode” In paragraph [0019]. US 2018/0100389 to Sen et al. further explains that electrodes can be “coil electrodes” in paragraph [0026].
While applicant presents arguments, the Examiner respectfully notes that a configurable electrode is a configurable antenna as explained and proven above, and that these explanations demonstrate what was well-known in the art, and that these are reasonably consistent with applicant’s disclosure. Applicant does not clearly redefine any term to be different than what was well-known in the art. The Examiner acknowledges that there are specific types of antennas that may reasonably be distinct from an electrode, such as how specific implementations of a coil antenna would not reasonably be considered an electrode. However, applicant is not claiming these specific implementations, and applicant does not reasonably disclose such specific implementations. Instead, applicant is generically reciting an antenna and electrode distinctly from each other, but where such a distinction, in light of disclosure, is not clear when the antennas disclosed are, as best understood, electrodes, and at a minimum, the electrodes disclosed are reasonably antennas.
To that point, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant, as applicant does not reasonably demonstrate what distinguishes an electrode from an antenna, and applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which an electrode is formed or otherwise implemented distinctly from an antenna.
As to applicant’s second point, applicant argues that those of ordinary skill in the art would understand that each addend comprises a shaped pad. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because, as explained above, a person would not reasonably have such an understanding. Each addend is not reasonably a pad, nor does it comprise a pad, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably interpret an addend to comprise or otherwise a pad as now claimed. Applicant, respectfully, presents no evidence to support applicant’s position, and instead argues what applicant believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would know but without evidence (see MPEP 2145(I)).
As to applicant’s third point, these arguments are respectfully moot as the rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
As to Claim 19,
As to applicant’s first and second points, these arguments have been responded to above in the response to the rejections of Claims 1 and 16, and applicant’s attention is directed to the above response.
As to applicant’s third point, the Examiner respectfully notes that while an array can reasonably include subarrays, in the same way a layer can include sublayers, applicant was previously using the same language to refer to all of the arrays. By referring to everything as an array without any distinguishing language, it is unclear what any array does and does not encompass, thus making it unclear what applicant means by claiming that one array comprises plural arrays. Applicant is now claiming that the array comprises one of two or more smaller arrays. While applicant now claims that the array comprises one of two or more smaller arrays, such an amendment does not reasonably address the issue, as it is unclear what the initial “array” does and does not include such that it includes plural smaller arrays. Furthermore, such a claim feature introduces new matter, as the original disclosure does not disclose such a feature.
As to applicant’s final paragraph in this section, the Examiner respectfully notes that the Office is not confused or have difficulty understanding what applicant intends the claims to recite. Instead, the issue here is what the actually claims recite and the reasonable indefinite manner in which they can be interpreted, which is being raised in the 112 rejections. To that point, if applicant desires an interview, applicant is invited to contact the Examiner to discuss setting up such an interview.
With regard to the previous 112 rejections,
The Examiner notes that no specific arguments have been presented with respect to these rejections. As such, those that have been overcome by way of amendment are withdrawn, but those that remain are repeated below.
With regard to the arguments on pages 13-18 previous prior art rejections,
As to the 102 rejections,
Applicant argues that Baarman et al. (Baarman) (US 2010/0259217) does not disclose “each of the plurality of addends is directly coupled to one or more adjacent addends within the array, each pair of adjacent addends within the array directly coupled through a respective pair of electrical conductors to a corresponding switchable electrical circuit” as recited in Claim 1.
Applicant acknowledges that Baarman discloses that at least some coils in an array may be coupled via individual switching devices to a common signal line, but argues that this is not the same as having every pair of adjacent addends in an array coupled via electrical conductors to a common switchable device that operates to connect/disconnect the pair of addends of Claim 1 or a similar feature in Claim 19. However, on the outset, the Examiner respectfully notes that such an argued feature is not claimed. Applicant does not claim nor require that every pair of adjacent addends in an array be coupled or connected in the argued manner. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant, because Figure 9A makes clear what each of the adjacent coils, such as coils L1 and L2, which represent a pair of adjacent addends, can reasonably be selected. Coils L2 and L3 could likewise be selected. Paragraph [0079] provides example configurations of how the coils can be selected, including combinations of coils L1 and L4, as well as L3 and L4, which each demonstrate distinct pairs of adjacent addends that can be and in fact are selected by the control device. These coils/addends are individually connected and disconnected by way of the switches SW1-SW12 as seen, and such a disclosure reasonably discloses the argued feature. Furthermore, when the addends/coils are selected, they are directly coupled to each other, such as when coils L1 and L4 are connected in a pair, they are directly coupled because switch SW2 must be closed.
Applicant then argues that since the coils make up the array, they would not be able to operate independently as the electrodes in Claims 12-15. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not reasonably provide any argument or explanation as to why the prior art would fail to disclose the argued claim features. On the outset, Claim 1 does not require any electrode, and neither do Claims 12-15. Claim 1 makes clear that the switchable electrical devices are configured to form connected sets of addends to form, for example, a configurable electrode.
As such, what applicant is claiming is that the switchable electrode devices are themselves configured to be able to connect the addends to form an electrode or antenna. However, such language does not require the addends actually be connected in this manner, and thus no electrode or antenna is required in the claim. Instead, as claimed, the addends must only be able to be connected in a manner that would reasonably form an electrode, such as the monopole electrode of Claim 12.
The individual coils, such as L1, are being treated and interpreted as addends, as they are electrical components that are connectable to form a larger overall electrical device that functions as an antenna/electrode, consistent with the disclosure. These coils can be connected in the claimed manner to form an antenna or electrode, and thus meet the claim feature.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully note that Claim 1 also provides two alternatives, which is that the addends can be connected to form an electrode or they can be connected to form an antenna. Dependent claims must incorporate all the limitations from their respective parent claims, and thus must include this alternative claim language. The argued claim language, such as that of Claim 12, is only further limiting the electrode embodiment in the situation that the addends are connected to form an electrode. However, this is not required, because when the addends are said to meet the antenna embodiment as expressly claimed, no electrode, as distinctly claimed, would need to be met, and thus any claim feature that further limits the electrode embodiment is not required to be met by the prior art. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant, because the prior art reasonably discloses the claim features when the antenna embodiment is selected instead of the electrode embodiment, and further, because the coils disclosed in the prior art can reasonably be connected in a manner that would reasonably meet the claimed electrode features in a similar manner as how applicant would connect such features.
Applicant then argues that Goswami et al. (Goswami) (US 2002/0167418) does not disclose the use of stack layers in contact with each other, among other features, but the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant has not addressed the reason this reference is stated to disclose the claim features under 102. Claim 19 is expressly directed towards a non-transitory machine readable medium that contains a program that causes a processor to perform certain functions. Neither a computer readable medium (memory) nor a processor would reasonable comprise or otherwise include any of the argued features. While such features can themselves be configured to use or control such features, such claim language is therefore directed towards the medium and processor themselves and what they are configured to do, and not to the actual devices they control. To that point, the prior art does disclose the claim features, because it is configured and thus able to operate in the claimed manner.
That stated, a 102/103 was provided only to the extent that it is held that these features, such as the stacked features as argued, are to be given patentable weight. The prior art combination discloses these features for the reasons stated in the rejection below and explained above.
Applicant argues that the claimed construction can be configured to form antenna an electrode combinations that are simply not possible with the teachings of the prior art, and applicant invites the Examiner to explain how the prior art can meet the claimed features. The Examiner respectfully notes that such an explanation has been provided above and in the rejection below, but further respectfully notes, that there is no evidence on the record that the prior art cannot form an antenna or electrode as argued. A coil, on its face, can be considered either an electrode or antenna, and merely connecting two coils directly together as is reasonably disclosed in Baarman in combination are also a coil or electrode. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As to the 103 rejections,
No specific argument is presented as to why the prior art fails to disclosed the added features of Claims 2 and 3, and any arguments presented here have reasonably been responded to in the above response or in the rejection found below. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs applicant’s attention to those responses and rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claims 1, 16, and 19,
The phrase “each one of the addends comprising a pad of electrically conductive material” on lines 4-5 of Claims 1 and 16 and on lines 8-9 in Claim 19 introduces new matter.
Applicant does not originally disclose that “each” addend comprises a pad. The original disclosure explains in many locations that the electrode is formed “on” each pad, such as in paragraphs[0044], [0045], and the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose that any addend, let alone each of them comprise a pad. As such, it is no addend itself comprises a pad, and each addend is not disclosed to comprise a pad. Claiming that each addend comprises a pad means that since plural addends are disclosed, plural pads, one per each addend, is being claimed. The original disclosure does not reasonably support such a claim feature. As is well-known in the art, and consistent with applicant’s disclosure, electrical components used to form one or more electrodes, such as an addend, are located “on” a pad, where the pad is the entire component on which the electrode(s)/addends are located. It is not well-known, nor explained in the disclosure, that each addend itself comprises or includes a pad, or that any addend comprises a pad. An addend is not originally disclosed to itself comprise a pad. Applicant is now claiming that plural addends themselves each comprise a pad and thus requiring plural pads, but where such a feature is also not originally disclosed. This feature therefore introduces new matter.
As to Claim 19,
The phrase “the array comprising one of two or more smaller arrays, each of the two or more smaller arrays formed in a respective layer of two or more stacked layers in contact with each other, and wherein each of the plurality of addends is directly coupled to one or more adjacent addends within the array” on lines 8-11 introduces new matter.
First, the Examiner notes that the original disclosure does not state that the one of two or more arrays as originally disclosed are “smaller” arrays as claimed. Nowhere in the original disclosure is such a feature disclosed, and thus introduces new matter.
Second, further emphasizing this in light of the claim language, applicant is expressly claiming that the array comprises “one of two or more smaller arrays.” The original claim language recited that the array comprises “one of two or more arrays.” When the array comprise “one” array in total, that array cannot, by definition, be smaller than the overall array as they are the same thing. As such, this recitation is at least new matter when the array comprises one array as expressly included in the claim language.
As to Claims 2-15, 17, 18, and 20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-20 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “the corresponding switchable electrical device is configured to be electrically controllable to electrically connect and disconnect the pair of adjacent addends coupled through the corresponding switchable electrical device and the pair of the electrical conductors” on lines 8-9 is indefinite.
Applicant previously claims “each pair of addends” are coupled through a respective pair of electrical conductors, and thus more than one pair was claimed to be connected in this manner as a plurality of addends are claimed. As such, the above phrase is indefinite because it is unclear which corresponding switchable electrical device of which pair of adjacent addends of which pair of electrical conductors the above phrase is referencing. This phrase is therefore unclear.
The phrase “each one of the addends comprising a pad of electrically conductive material” on lines 4-5 is indefinite.
At issue here is that it is unclear what applicant means by reciting that each addend is comprises a pad as claimed. The original disclosure does not disclose that any addend comprise a pad, let alone “each addend.” The original disclosure explains in many locations that the electrode is formed “on” each pad, such as in paragraphs[0044], [0045], and the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose that any addend, let alone each of them comprise a pad. As such, it is unclear how a pad should be interpreted, and it is unclear how an addend should be interpreted in light of the disclosure. As is well-known in the art, and consistent with applicant’s disclosure, electrical components used to form one or more electrodes are located “on” a pad, where the pad is the entire component on which the electrode(s) is located. It is not well-known, nor explained in the disclosure, that each addend itself comprises or includes a pad. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand how to interpret the above claim feature. A person of ordinary skill in the art would further not reasonably recognize how many pads are being claimed, as reciting that each addend comprises a pad reasonably means that plural pads are present, one for each addend. Such a feature is not reasonably explained or disclosed. For the purpose of compact prosecution, and consistent with the disclosure, the above phrase is being interpreted to mean that the addends are part of a pad, but do not comprise or otherwise include a pad.
As to Claim 6,
The phrase “the addend controller configured to set a status of the addend by applying a signal to the addend via the addend control line, floating the addend by disconnecting the addend coupled to the addend control line from any additional circuitry within the addend controller, or coupling the addend via the addend control line as a return or a ground connection” on lines 2-6 is indefinite.
1) More than one addend was previously recited, and thus the phrase “the addend” is indefinite because it is unclear which addend this phrase is referencing.
2) The phrase “the addend control line” is indefinite because more than one control line would reasonably previously exist as applicant claims that each addend of the plurality of addends is coupled through such a control line. It is therefore unclear which control line this phrase is referencing.
As to Claim 16,
The phrase “each one of the addends comprising a pad of electrically conductive material” on lines 4-5 is indefinite.
At issue here is that it is unclear what applicant means by reciting that each addend is comprises a pad as claimed. The original disclosure does not disclose that any addend comprise a pad, let alone “each addend.” The original disclosure explains in many locations that the electrode is formed “on” each pad, such as in paragraphs[0044], [0045], and the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose that any addend, let alone each of them comprise a pad. As such, it is unclear how a pad should be interpreted, and it is unclear how an addend should be interpreted in light of the disclosure. As is well-known in the art, and consistent with applicant’s disclosure, electrical components used to form one or more electrodes are located “on” a pad, where the pad is the entire component on which the electrode(s) is located. It is not well-known, nor explained in the disclosure, that each addend itself comprises or includes a pad. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand how to interpret the above claim feature. A person of ordinary skill in the art would further not reasonably recognize how many pads are being claimed, as reciting that each addend comprises a pad reasonably means that plural pads are present, one for each addend. Such a feature is not reasonably explained or disclosed. For the purpose of compact prosecution, and consistent with the disclosure, the above phrase is being interpreted to mean that the addends are part of a pad, but do not comprise or otherwise include a pad.
As to Claim 19,
The phrase “each one of the addends comprising a pad of electrically conductive material” on lines 8-9 is indefinite.
At issue here is that it is unclear what applicant means by reciting that each addend is comprises a pad as claimed. The original disclosure does not disclose that any addend comprise a pad, let alone “each addend.” The original disclosure explains in many locations that the electrode is formed “on” each pad, such as in paragraphs[0044], [0045], and the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose that any addend, let alone each of them comprise a pad. As such, it is unclear how a pad should be interpreted, and it is unclear how an addend should be interpreted in light of the disclosure. As is well-known in the art, and consistent with applicant’s disclosure, electrical components used to form one or more electrodes are located “on” a pad, where the pad is the entire component on which the electrode(s) is located. It is not well-known, nor explained in the disclosure, that each addend itself comprises or includes a pad. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand how to interpret the above claim feature. A person of ordinary skill in the art would further not reasonably recognize how many pads are being claimed, as reciting that each addend comprises a pad reasonably means that plural pads are present, one for each addend. Such a feature is not reasonably explained or disclosed. For the purpose of compact prosecution, and consistent with the disclosure, the above phrase is being interpreted to mean that the addends are part of a pad, but do not comprise or otherwise include a pad.
The phrase “the array comprising one of two or more smaller arrays, each of the two or more smaller arrays formed in a respective layer of two or more stacked layers in contact with each other, and wherein each of the plurality of addends is directly coupled to one or more adjacent addends within the array” on lines 8-11 is indefinite
Applicant is expressly claiming that the array comprises “one of two or more smaller arrays.” However, when the array comprise “one” array in total, that array cannot, by definition, be smaller than the overall array as they are the same thing. As such, this recitation is indefinite, because it is unclear how the array should be interpreted, in that, for example, it is unclear what “smaller” array would exist when the array comprises just one array.
As to Claim 20,
The phrase “controlling the application of an electronic signal” on lines 4-5 is indefinite.
No application of an electronic signal was previously recited, and thus it is unclear what application of an electronic signal this phrase is referencing.
As to Claims 2-15, 17, 18, and 20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baarman et al. (Baarman) (US 2010/0259217).
As to Claim 1,
Baarman discloses An apparatus comprising: two or more stacked layers in contact with each other (Figures 5, 8), (Paragraphs [0071]-[0073],[0076] / note Figure 8 is merely a switching version of Figure 5 with additional layers/coils, and thus reasonably includes the stacked feature), each of the stacked layers comprising a plurality of addends (coils L1-L6) (Figure 8), each one of the addends comprising a pad of electrically conductive material (Figure 8 / note each coil is a flat layered coil and is therefore reasonably a pad of electrically conductive material, and an addend is being interpreted to be or otherwise include a pad in the same manner that applicant is interpreting such a feature), the plurality of addends arranged in an array (Figure 8), wherein each of the plurality of addends is directly coupled to one or more adjacent addends within the array (Figure 9A / note adjacent coils are directly coupled though respective conductors and switches SW1-SW12), each pair of adjacent addends within the array directly coupled through a respective pair of electrical conductors to a corresponding switchable electrical device (SW1-SW12) (Figure 9A), (Paragraph [0078]); wherein the corresponding switchable electrical device is configured to be electrically controllable to electrically connect and disconnect the pair of adjacent addends (Paragraph [0079]), and wherein a set of switchable electrical devices comprising all of the corresponding switchable electrical devices is configured to be electrically controllable to form an electrically connected set of the plurality of addends arranged to form at least one of a configurable electrode for use as part of a downhole tool positioned in a wellbore or a configurable antenna for use as part of the downhole tool positioned in the wellbore (Paragraph [0078],[0079] / note the switchable electrical devices are themselves configured to and able to connect coils/addends to form either the claimed antenna or electrode, and that the coil array (addends) can reasonably be said to meet both intended uses, as they function as an antenna to wirelessly transmit electrical energy which is what all antennas do, and the array can be used in a downhole tool such as to provide power to various electrical components in the wellbore without the need for electrical wires).
As to Claim 4,
Baarman discloses the set of switchable devices comprises individually controllable transistors (Figures 9A,9B),(Paragraphs [0078],[0079] / note switches SW1-SW12 are individually controllably FETs).
As to Claim 5,
Baarman discloses wherein each of the electrically switchable devices is electrically coupled through an individual switch control line to a switch controller (drive/control circuitry) (Paragraph [0059] / note the control circuitry can be used to control the FETs of Figure 9A, and the switch control line must be present to control the switches), the switch controller configured to provide of control signals to the individual switch control line to control an electrical connection between one of the pairs of adjacent addends (Paragraphs [0059],[0079] / note the controller operates by controls the switches via their respective individual switch control lines to activate or turn off switches, and this controls the connections between addends as the switches are between the addends (coils)).
As to Claim 6,
Baarman discloses wherein each of the plurality of addends is electrically coupled through an individual addend control line to an addend controller (drive/control circuitry) (Paragraph [0059] / note the control circuitry can be used to control the FETs of Figure 9A, and the switch control line must be present to control the switches), the addend controller configured to set a status of the addend by applying a signal to the addend via the addend control line, floating the addend by disconnecting the addend coupled to the addend control line from any additional circuitry within the addend controller, or coupling the addend via the addend control line as a return or a ground connection (Paragraphs [0079]), (Figures 9A,9B / note the controller controls which switches are on and off, which controls which addends are either floating, on, or connected to ground via an electrical component).
As to Claim 7,
Baarman discloses wherein the addends are located in a flexible layer of material configured to allow the antenna configuration to bend around and be formed to a shape of an outer surface of the downhole tool (Figures 9A,9B / note that this claim feature is not positively recited when the configurable antenna embodiment is selected, which is disclosed by the Baarman as explained in the above rejection of Claim 1).
As to Claim 8,
Baarman discloses the set of switchable electrical devices are configured to be electrically controllable to form an electrically connected set of the plurality of addends arranged to form an antenna comprising a set of antenna coils (Figures 9A,9B).
As to Claim 9,
Baarman discloses the set of switchable electrical devices are configured to be electrically controllable to form an electrically connected set of the plurality of addends arranged to form an antenna comprising a set of tilted antenna coils (Paragraphs [0078],[0079]), (Figures 9A,9B / note that this claim only requires that the switches (switchable electrical devices) are configured to be “able” to be controlled, and thus be “controllable,” to form the above antenna. Applicant is therefore not positively claiming or requiring the set of antenna coils or any device be configured to form such a set of antenna coils. Instead, this claim requires that the set of switchable electrical devices are able to be controlled to form such a set. Because the switches and addends of Baarman are expressly disclosed to be controllable to be connected in various combinations, these addends are reasonably able to be controlled to form the claimed set of antenna coils, and thus meet the claim).
As to Claim 10,
Baarman discloses the set of switchable electrical devices are configured to be electrically controllable to form an electrically connected set of the plurality of addends arranged to form an antenna comprising a radial coil antenna (Paragraphs [0078],[0079]), (Figures 9A,9B / note that this claim only requires that the switches (switchable electrical devices) are configured to be “able” to be controlled, and thus be “controllable,” to form the above antenna. Applicant is therefore not positively claiming or requiring the radial coil antenna or any device be configured to form such a radial coil antenna.. Instead, this claim requires that the set of switchable electrical devices are able to be controlled to form such a radial coil antenna. Because the switches and addends of Baarman are expressly disclosed to be controllable to be connected in various combinations, these addends are reasonably able to be controlled to form the claimed set of antenna coils, and thus meet the claim. Also note any one of the coils can be the radial coil as claimed).
As to Claim 11,
Baarman discloses the set of switchable electrical devices are configured to be electrically controllable to form an electrically connected set of the plurality of addends arranged to form an antenna comprising a toroid antenna (Paragraphs [0078],[0079]), (Figures 9A,9B / note that this claim only requires that the switches (switchable electrical devices) are configured to be “able” to be controlled, and thus be “controllable,” to form the above antenna. Applicant is therefore not positively claiming or requiring the toroid antenna or any device be configured to form such a toroid antenna. Instead, this claim requires that the set of switchable electrical devices are able to be controlled to form such a toroid antenna Because the switches and addends of Baarman are expressly disclosed to be controllable to be connected in various combinations, these addends are reasonably able to be controlled to form the claimed set of antenna coils, and thus meet the claim).
As to Claim 12,
Baarman discloses wherein the configurable electrode comprises a monopole electrode (Paragraphs [0078],[0079]), (Figures 9A,9B / note that this claim is being interpreted to mean that the addends can be connected to form the above monopole electrode as the addends are not originally disclosed to be physically arranged to form the above electrode, and because the addends can be connected in the claimed manner, Baarman discloses the claim features, and the prior art further meets the claim when the antenna option is said to be met the prior art, and thus the electrode feature above is not required).
As to Claim 13,
Baarman discloses wherein the configurable electrode comprises a dipole antenna electrode comprising a transmitting electrode and a return electrode, or passive monitor electrodes (Paragraphs [0078],[0079]), (Figures 9A,9B / note that this claim is being interpreted to mean that the addends can be connected to form the above dipole electrode as the addends are not originally disclosed to be physically arranged to form the above electrode, and because the addends can be connected in the claimed manner, Baarman discloses the claim features, and the prior art also discloses this claim feature when it is said to meet the electrode option of Claim 1, and thus the above antenna object is not required).
As to Claim 14,
Baarman discloses at least some of the plurality of addends are to operate as one or more of a current electrode or a guard electrode in a focused logging tool (Paragraphs [0078],[0079]), (Figures 9A,9B / note this phrase only requires that the addends be able to be used as a current or guard electrode in a focused logging tool. The coils (electrodes) in Baarman are reasonably capable of being used in such a manner, and are similar to those as disclosed by applicant. As such, the prior art reasonably discloses the claim feature).
As to Claim 15,
Baarman discloses at least some of the plurality of addends are to operate as one or more of a button electrode or a guard electrode in a resistivity imager tool (Paragraphs [0078],[0079]), (Figures 9A,9B / note this phrase only requires that the addends be able to be used as a button electrode or a guard electrode in a resistivity imager tool. The coils (electrodes) in Baarman are reasonably capable of being used in such a manner, and are similar to those as disclosed by applicant. As such, the prior art reasonably discloses the claim feature).
As to Claim 19,
Baarman discloses A non-transitory machine readable medium containing program instructions executable by a processor (controller or drive/control) to perform the functions of: controlling the actuation of one or more switchable devices (SW1-SW12) to configure an electrically coupled set of addends of a plurality of addends (L1-L7) arranged in an array (Figures 8A,8B,9A) the electrically coupled set of addends forming part of at least one of a configurable electrode as part of a downhole tool positioned within a wellbore or a configurable antenna as part of the downhole tool within the wellbore (Figure 8), (Paragraphs [0071]-[0073],[0076] / see note below), wherein, each of the plurality of addends in the array is formed from a pad of electrically conductive material (Figure 9A / note this is a product by process claim feature, and that because the final product addends (coils) are electrically conductive and no final product non-obvious difference exists because this claim feature and the disclosure of Baarman, Baarman discloses this feature, also note the coils or metal between the slots can be considered “pads”), the array comprising one of two or more arrays, each of the two or more arrays formed in a respective layer of two or more stacked layers in contact with each other (Figures 5, 8), (Paragraphs [0071]-[0073],[0076] / note Figure 8 is merely a switching version of Figure 5 with additional layers/coils, and thus reasonably includes the stacked feature, and note that any two coils can be said to be an array, thus including plural arrays), and wherein each of the plurality of addends is directly coupled to one or more adjacent addends within the array (Figure 9A) through a respective pair of electrical conductors and a corresponding switchable electrical device (Figure 8A,8B, 9A), (Paragraphs [0078],[0079]).
(Note: This claim is directed towards a machine readable medium and what the program on it is “able” to cause a processor to perform. As such, none of the structure recited in the claim is positively recited, because 1) the claim is directed towards what the program can allow a processor to do and is therefore directed towards the medium and program itself which do not include any of the claimed structural features, and 2) the use of the term “able” does not positively recited any of the claim features, and all that is required is that the program code on the machine readable medium could be used to implement the claim feature. Because the program on the medium could be used in the claimed manner, the prior art reasonably discloses the claim feature.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Goswami et al. (Goswami) (US 2002/0167418) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Goswami et al. (Goswami) (US 2002/0167418) in view of Baarman et al. (Baarman) (US 2010/0259217).
As to Claim 19,
Goswami discloses A non-transitory machine readable medium containing program instructions executable by a processor (580) to perform the functions of: controlling the actuation one or more switchable devices (535),(515) to configure an electrically coupled set of addends of a plurality of addends ( just elements 420 or 435 or 440 or the any shape disclosed) or these elements plus 525) arranged in an array (Paragraphs [0029],[0039]-[0042]), the electrically coupled set of addends forming part of at least one of a configurable antenna or a configurable electrode as part of a downhole tool positioned within a wellbore (Abstract), wherein, each of the plurality of addends in the array comprises a pad of electrically conductive material (Paragraph [0029]) / note that in light of the manner in which this feature is being interpreted by applicant, the prior art is being interpreted in the same manner such that the coils or metal between the slots can be considered “pads”), (Figures 4B,4C,4D), the array comprising one of two or more smaller arrays, each of the two or more smaller arrays formed in a respective layer of two or more stacked layers in contact with each other, and wherein each of the plurality of addends is directly coupled to one or more adjacent addends within the array (Paragraph [0037] / note the elements are connected in series, parallel, or a combination thereof), through a respective pair of electrical conductors and a corresponding switchable electrical device (Paragraphs [0037],[0039] / see note below).
This claim is directed towards a machine readable medium and what the program on it is “able” to cause a processor to perform. As such, none of the structure recited in the claim is positively recited, because 1) the claim is directed towards what the program can allow a processor to do and is therefore directed towards the medium and program itself which do not include any of the claimed structural features, and 2) the use of the term “able” does not positively recited any of the claim features, and all that is required is that the program code on the machine readable medium could be used to implement the claim feature. Because the program on the medium could be used in the claimed manner, the prior art reasonably discloses the claim feature.
That stated, only to the extent that it is held that the structural features of this claim are required in the claim, Goswami does not disclose the array comprising one of two or more arrays, each of the two or more arrays formed in a respective layer of two or more stacked layers in contact with each other.
Baarman discloses two or more stacked layers in contact with each other, each of the stacked layers comprising a plurality of addends (Paragraphs [0071],[0073],[0078],[0079]), (Figures 8A,8B,9A,9B / note the Figures 8,9 embodiment is just a switchable version of the earlier embodiment, and therefore must include the stacked coil arrangement from paragraphs [0071],[0073])).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Goswami to include the array comprising one of two or more arrays, each of the two or more arrays formed in a respective layer of two or more stacked layers in contact with each other as taught by Baarman in order to advantageously provide a more compact antenna configuration that requires less space and can therefore allow the tool to be smaller or contain other sensing features, thereby either reducing cost or increase device capabilities).
(Note: Goswami discloses that each element is individually excitable, and that the elements can be coupled in series, parallel, or a combination thereof. As such, each element must be directly coupled to adjacent elements. Furthermore, because each element is individually excitable, the switches must have the wiring to select each specific element. As such, Goswami either must have individual switches between each of the elements similar to that disclosed by applicant, or it must at least have a switching box that would directly be coupled to any two elements at a time. Lastly, Goswami also discloses that a subset of the elements (coils or slots) can be selected and excited (Paragraph [0030]). The switches of Goswami therefore would also reasonably disclose the above claim feature when any two adjacent elements (coils or slots) are selected for excitation. As such, Goswami reasonably discloses “each pair of adjacent addends within the array directly coupled through a respective pair of electrical conductors and a corresponding switchable electrical device.”)
As to Claim 20,
Goswami discloses the program instructions further include instructions executable by the processor to perform the functions of: operating the electrically coupled set of addends in a first mode by controlling the application of an electronic signal generated by a signal generator coupled to the electrically coupled set of addends to emit a transmitted signal, and operating the electrically coupled set of addends in a second mode by controlling the actuation and further processing an electrical signal received at the electrically coupled set of addends utilizing receiver circuity that is coupled to the electrically coupled set of addends (Paragraphs [0028],0029],[0037],[0039]-[0042] / note the signal generator can be the oscillator 315 and the transceiver 550 for example will have receive circuitry).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman et al. (Baarman) (US 2010/0259217) in view of Tripon-Canseliet et al. (Tripon-Canseliet) (US 2021/0203077).
As to Claims 2 and 3,
Baarman does not disclose the electrically conductive material forming the pad of each of the plurality of addends comprises copper metal, and the electrical conductors are formed as traces on a printed circuit board, the traces comprising copper metal.
Tripon-Canseliet discloses the electrically conductive material forming the pad of each of the plurality of addends comprises copper metal, and the electrical conductors are formed as traces on a printed circuit board, the traces comprising copper metal. (Paragraphs [0040]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Baarman to include the electrically conductive material forming the pad of each of the plurality of addends comprises copper metal, and the electrical conductors are formed as traces on a printed circuit board, the traces comprising copper metal.as taught by Tripon-Canseliet in order to advantageously utilize a conventional technology process (Paragraph [0042]) that is therefore known to be successful, and to use inexpensive metal that will keep costs low and still allow the desired electrical signals to be transmitted.
(Note that in the combination, printing copper traces on an insulating material is reasonably an printed circuit board).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman et al. (Baarman) (US 2010/0259217) in view of Goswami et al. (Goswami) (US 2002/0167418).
As to Claim 7,
Baarman is stated to disclose the feature “the addends are located in a flexible layer of material configured to bend around and be formed to the shape of an outer surface of the downhole tool” when the two claim options in the last paragraph of Claim 1 are interpreted to mean that the antenna does not have an intended use with regard to the downhole tool.
However, only to the extent that this phrase is held to require either the antenna or electrode to be usable with the downhole tool, Baarman would not disclose the addends are located in a flexible layer of material configured to bend around and be formed to the shape of an outer surface of the downhole tool.
Goswami discloses wherein the addends are located in a flexible layer of material configured to bend around and be formed to the shape of an outer surface of the downhole tool (Paragraph [0029] / note the board 425 is wrapped around the interior of the drill collar and therefore is reasonable able to bend around the outer surface of the tool as well).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Baarman to include the addends are located in a flexible layer of material configured to allow the antenna configuration to bend around and be formed to the shape of an outer surface of the downhole tool as taught by Goswami in order to advantageously allow the antenna configuration to be positionable on the tool body so that it can be positioned as close as possible to a component needing power or one that is intended to be communicated with that was also located on the tool body, and conform to the tool body to ensure a uniform amount of power and energy were provided so as to minimize charging or communication errors.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami et al. (Goswami) (US 2002/0167418) in view Baarman et al. (Baarman) (US 2010/0259217).
As to Claim 16,
Goswami discloses A method comprising: positioning a downhole tool within a wellbore (Abstract), the downhole tool comprising a configurable antenna (560) comprising: a plurality of addends ( just elements 420 or 435 or 440 or the any shape disclosed) or these elements plus 525) (Paragraphs [0029],[0040], (Figures 4B,4C,4D,5B), each one of the addends comprising a pad of electrically conductive material (Paragraph [0029]) / note that in light of the manner in which this feature is being interpreted by applicant, the prior art is being interpreted in the same manner such that the coils or metal between the slots can be considered “pads”), (Figures 4B,4C,4D), the plurality of addends arranged in an array (Figures 4B,4C), wherein each of the plurality of addends is directly coupled to one or more adjacent addends within the array (Paragraph [0037] / note the elements are connected in series, parallel, or a combination thereof), each pair of adjacent addends within the array directly coupled through a respective pair of electrical conductors to a corresponding switchable electrical device in a set of switchable electrical devices (Paragraphs [0037],[0039] / see note below); wherein the corresponding switchable electrical device is electrically controllable to electrically connect and disconnect the pair of adjacent addends via the respective pair of electrical conductors (Paragraph [0037] / note the elements and conductors will be connected and disconnected as claimed because that is how switches operate), and wherein the set of switchable electrical devices are configured to be electrically controllable to form an electrically connected set of the plurality of addends to form at least one of a configurable antenna or a configurable electrode (Paragraphs [0029],[0037],[0039] / note the elements collectively form an arrayed antenna that is reconfigurable based on the manner the elements are connected), actuating one or more of the switchable devices to create an electrically coupled set of addends of the plurality of addends to form the at least one of the configurable antenna or configurable electrode (Paragraph [0039]), and operating the electrically coupled set of addends to transmit or receiver signals within the wellbore (Paragraphs [0037],[0039]).
Goswami does not disclose two or more stacked layers in contact with each other, each of the stacked layers comprising a plurality of addends.
Baarman discloses two or more stacked layers in contact with each other, each of the stacked layers comprising a plurality of addends (Paragraphs [0071],[0073],[0078],[0079]), (Figures 8A,8B,9A,9B / note the Figures 8,9 embodiment is just a switchable version of the earlier embodiment, and therefore must include the stacked coil arrangement from paragraphs [0071],[0073])).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Goswami to include two or more stacked layers in contact with each other, each of the stacked layers comprising a plurality of addends as taught by Baarman in order to advantageously provide a more compact antenna configuration that requires less space and can therefore allow the tool to be smaller or contain other sensing features, thereby either reducing cost or increase device capabilities).
(Note: Goswami discloses that each element is individually excitable, and that the elements can be coupled in series, parallel, or a combination thereof. As such, each element must be directly coupled to adjacent elements. Furthermore, because each element is individually excitable, the switches must have the wiring to select each specific element. As such, Goswami either must have individual switches between each of the elements similar to that disclosed by applicant, or it must at least have a switching box that would directly be coupled to any two elements at a time. Lastly, Goswami also discloses that a subset of the elements (coils or slots) can be selected and excited (Paragraph [0030]). The switches of Goswami therefore would also reasonably disclose the above claim feature when any two adjacent elements (coils or slots) are selected for excitation. As such, Goswami reasonably discloses “each pair of adjacent addends within the array directly coupled through a respective pair of electrical conductors and a corresponding switchable electrical device.”)
As to Claim 17,
Goswami discloses operating the electrically coupled set of addends comprises applying an electronic signal generated by a signal generator coupled to the electrically coupled set of addends to transmit a transmitted signal (Paragraphs [0028], [0029],[0037] / note the signal generator can be the oscillator 315).
As to Claim 18,
Goswami discloses operating the electrically coupled set of addends comprises receiving at the electrically coupled set of addends a received electrical signal, and coupling the received electrical signal to receiver circuity (Paragraphs [0028], [0029],[0037] / note the transceiver 550 for example will have receive circuitry).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights