Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s claims, filed on 09/26/2025.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 11-12, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain
pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome 35 U.S.C 112 and 103 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action filed 05/27/2025. Applicant’s argument regarding the 101 rejection is not persuasive and the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection maintained.
However, upon further consideration, the amendments introduce new issues that a new
ground(s) of prior art rejections is made for claims 1-15.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “apply the tramming assistance information during tramming of the drilling rig for assisting the tramming of the rig” integrates the limitation into a practical application, Examiner respectfully disagrees. A system response based on an abstract idea is merely be an “attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015)” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Applying the tramming information does not provide detail or structure on what is being accomplished with the tramming information or defining how the tramming information is directing the rig. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the 35 U.S.C rejection is maintained.
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 1-3, 6-10, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a system (machine or manufacture), and a method (process), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite abstract limitations as shown underlined below:
A mobile underground drilling rig, comprising a carrier, at least one boom attached at a first end to the carrier, and a drilling unit attached to a second end of the boom, and at least one processor, at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive target pose information indicative of at least a target pose for the drilling unit in accordance with an input plan,
detect, during tramming of the drilling rig, current carrier pose information indicative of orientation of the carrier,
define, during tramming of the drilling rig, current orientation of the drilling unit on the basis of the detected carrier pose information indicative of the orientation of the carrier; and
generate, during tramming of the drilling rig, tramming assistance information indicating a current pose of the drilling unit relative to the target pose of the drilling unit on the basis of the target pose information and the defined orientation of the drilling unit, and;
apply the tramming assistance information during tramming of the drilling rig for assisting the tramming of the rig.
Claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar elements, and therefore are not repeated for brevity.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, other than reciting “a data processing apparatus”, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of generic computing elements does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Furthermore, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), claims directed toward a mental process include claims to “‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 199 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite additional elements as shown bolded below:
A mobile underground drilling rig, comprising a carrier, at least one boom attached at a first end to the carrier, and a drilling unit attached to a second end of the boom, and at least one processor, at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive target pose information indicative of at least a target pose for the drilling unit in accordance with an input plan,
detect, during tramming of the drilling rig, current carrier pose information indicative of orientation of the carrier,
define, during tramming of the drilling rig, current orientation of the drilling unit on the basis of the detected carrier pose information indicative of the orientation of the carrier; and
generate, during tramming of the drilling rig, tramming assistance information indicating a current pose of the drilling unit relative to the target pose of the drilling unit on the basis of the target pose information and the defined orientation of the drilling unit, and;
apply the tramming assistance information during tramming of the drilling rig for assisting the tramming of the rig.
Claims 8 recites substantially similar elements, and therefore is not repeated for brevity. Claim 15 recites the additional elements of “a computer program”, which is recited as a non-transitory medium. Examiner notes that the “data processing apparatus” is the same scope as “control” and therefore will analyze those elements the same way.
The control and the supporting system components (i.e. non-transitory machine-readable storage medium) are additional elements whose functions are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. The recitation of the drilling rig, carrier, boom, and drilling unit merely restrict the application to a particular technical environment or field of use. The recitation of “apply the tramming assistance” merely amount to the words “apply it” or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements of the control means and the supporting system components amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the specification notes that the control means and associated processing is a generic computer [0065].
As discussed above, the limitations of the drilling rig, carrier, boom, and drilling unit merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use and “apply the tramming assistance” merely amounts to the words “apply it”. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim(s) add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Furthermore, the drilling rig, carrier, boom, and drilling unit are generically claimed and are merely conventional wellsite tools to provide data input for the abstract idea (see MPEP section 2106.05(h)).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Examiner notes that, in the interest of compact prosecution, regarding the system response based on the abstract idea as detailed above, if the system response was alternatively interpreted as encompassing an additional computing function (i.e. directly controlling the tramming operation), this limitation would merely be an “attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015)” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, these claims recite the additional elements of “a rock drill” and “a feed beam” which merely restrict the application to a particular technical environment or field of use. These claims also recite limitations that further define the “input plan” which further limits the abstract idea with more specific data elements. The recitation of the specific variables (i.e. target positions and orientations for each hole…) is insufficient as “merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas (See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, the limitations of “defining deviation of the drilling unit…” and “generating…on the basis of the defined deviation…” are further directed to a method encompassing a mental process, as described above in regards to claim 1 and 8.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, the limitations of “receiving orientation information…” and “defining the orientation…and joint position information of a plurality of joints…” are further directed to a method encompassing a mental process, as described above in regards to claim 1 and 8. The “gyroscope” is not a positively recited structure, and is therefore not considered an additional element. There is not method step requiring the measurement by a gyroscope, and the claim on requires analyzing the data that is received. This also is applicable to the limitation of “a plurality of joints” as merely the source of the data that is analyzed and not a positively recited structure.
Regarding claim 6 and 13, these claims recite limitations that are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. As noted in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward “necessary data gathering and outputting” is considered insignificant. The claim does not recite anything more than a generic display methodology; therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the limitation of “defining a steering control instruction...” is further directed to a method encompassing a mental process, as described above in regards to claim 1 and 8. The instruction is merely “defined” and not sent autonomously to affect the steering. Furthermore, as noted above, the display of the instruction to an operator would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eilo et al. (US2008/0230270) in view of Launis et al. (WO2018184916).
Claim 1. Eilo discloses: A mobile underground drilling rig (1 rock drilling rig, Fig 1), comprising a carrier (2 carrier, Fig. 1), at least one boom attached at a first end to the carrier (3 drill boom, Fig. 1), and a drilling unit attached to a second end of the boom (6 rock drill machine, Fig. 1), and at least one processor, at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (30 control unit, Fig. 1); input plan (14 drilling plan, Fig. 3); detect, during tramming of the drilling rig, current carrier pose information indicative of orientation of the carrier (distance between carrier and wall is measured, [0023]); and generate, during tramming of the drilling rig, tramming assistance information (user interface displays measurements of deviations, [0025]); and apply the tramming assistance information during tramming of the drilling rig for assisting the tramming of the rig (monitoring and comparing positioning, drive the rig to planned location; [0024]). Elio does not disclose: receive target pose information indicative of at least a target pose for the drilling unit in accordance with an input plan; define, during tramming of the drilling rig, current orientation of the drilling unit on the basis of the detected carrier pose information indicative of the orientation of the carrier; and generate, during tramming of the drilling rig, tramming assistance information indicating a current pose of the drilling unit relative to the target pose of the drilling unit on the basis of the target pose information and the defined orientation of the drilling unit.
Launis discloses an apparatus for controlling booms of a mine vehicle comprising of a boom coupled to drill unit, a controller, sensors to determine pose information and server to compare target and current pose information. Therefore, Launis teaches: receive target pose information indicative of at least a target pose for the drilling unit (target pose of 3 boom coupled to 4 drilling unit; Pg. 20, lines 22-23; initial orientation of the tool is detected; Pg. 12, lines 3-4) in accordance with an input plan (drilling pattern or pre-designed plan; Pg. 20, lines 25-27); define, during tramming of the drilling rig, current orientation of the drilling unit on the basis of the detected carrier pose information indicative of the orientation of the carrier (current pose of boom is determined; Pg. 20, lines 27-28; current pose is input into system as well as other physical objects e.g. carrier; Pg. 20 lines 22-25; system is configured to prevent collisions between the boom and carrier therefore, the orientation of the carrier is inherently known; Pg. 6, lines 19-21); and generate, during tramming of the drilling rig, tramming assistance information indicating a current pose of the drilling unit relative to the target pose of the drilling unit on the basis of the target pose information and the defined orientation of the drilling unit (operator is informed, Pg. 12, lines 21-23); control unit may display guidance on a display; Fig. 4; Pg. 12, lines 24-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control system of Eilo by incorporating the drilling unit control system of Launis to compare of the current drilling unit orientation to the target pose orientation to control the drill unit automatically toward the target position with a reasonable expectation of success as taught by Launis (Pg. 12, lines 3-13).
Claim 2. Eilo in view of Launis teaches: The drilling rig of claim 1, wherein the drilling unit includes a rock drill (Eilo: 8 tool, Fig. 3 or Launis: 4 drilling unit, Fig. 1) attached to a feed beam rotatably connected to the boom (Eilo: Fig. 1 or Launis: Fig. 1), the input plan including a drilling plan including target positions and orientations for each hole in a set of holes to be drilled (Eilo: 16 direction of holes and 15 starting points, Fig. 3 or Launis: drilling pattern or pre-designed plan; Pg. 20, lines 25-27), and wherein the target pose information is indicative of, or defined based on, a target orientation for the feed beam for drilling a hole in the set of holes (Launis: target pose of 3 boom coupled to 4 drilling unit; Pg. 20, lines 22-23; initial orientation of the tool is detected; Pg. 12, lines 3-4).
Claim 3. Eilo in view of Launis teaches: The drilling rig of claim 1 or 2, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to define deviation of the drilling unit from the at least one target pose on the basis of the defined orientation of the drilling unit and the target pose information (Launis: target pose of 3 boom coupled to 4 drilling unit; Pg. 20, lines 22-23; initial orientation of the tool is detected; Pg. 12, lines 3-4), and generate the tramming assistance information on the basis of the defined deviation of the orientation of the drilling unit from the at least one target pose (Launis: operator is informed, Pg. 12, lines 21-23); control unit may display guidance on a display; Fig. 4; Pg. 12, lines 24-25).
Claim 6. Eilo in view of Launis teaches: The drilling rig of claim 1,wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to generate a graphical user interface view (Eilo: 18 user interface, Fig. 4 or Launis: control unit may display guidance on a display; Fig. 4; Pg. 12, lines 24-25) indicative of at least the orientation of the drilling unit and the at least one target pose, and displaying the graphical user interface view during the tramming of the drilling rig for assisting an operator to control the tramming of the drilling rig to a drilling position for carrying out a drilling operation according to a drilling plan (Eilo: [0024-0027]).
Claim 7. Eilo in view of Launis teaches The drilling rig of claim 1,wherein the generating the tramming assistance information includes defining a steering control instruction for autonomous steering operation or for guiding an operator to control steering of the drilling rig (Eilo: [0026]).
Claim 8. Eilo discloses: A method for controlling an underground drilling rig comprising a carrier, at least one boom attached at a first end to the carrier, and a drilling unit attached to a second end of the boom, the method comprising the steps of: detecting, during tramming of the drilling rig, current carrier pose information indicative of orientation of the carrier. Elios does not disclose: receiving target pose information indicative of at least target pose for the drilling unit in accordance with an input plan, defining, during tramming of the drilling rig, current orientation of the drilling unit on the basis of the detected carrier pose information indicative of the orientation of the carrier, and generating, during tramming of the drilling rig, tramming assistance information indicating a current pose of the drilling unit relative to the target pose of the drilling unit on the basis of the target pose information and the defined orientation of the drilling unit and applying the tramming assistance information during tramming of the drilling rig for assisting the tramming of the rig (see previously rejected claim 1).
Launis teaches: receiving target pose information indicative of at least target pose for the drilling unit in accordance with an input plan, defining, during tramming of the drilling rig, current orientation of the drilling unit on the basis of the detected carrier pose information indicative of the orientation of the carrier, and generating, during tramming of the drilling rig, tramming assistance information indicating a current pose of the drilling unit relative to the target pose of the drilling unit on the basis of the target pose information and the defined orientation of the drilling unit and applying the tramming assistance information during tramming of the drilling rig for assisting the tramming of the rig (see previously rejected claim 1).
Claim 9. Eilo in view of Launis teaches: The method of claim 8, wherein the drilling unit includes a rock drill attached to a feed beam rotatably connected to the boom, the input plan including a drilling plan including target positions and orientations for each hole in a set of holes to be drilled, and the target pose information is indicative of, or defined based on, a target orientation for the feed beam for drilling a hole in the set of holes (see previously rejected claim 2).
Claim 10. Eilo in view of Launis teaches: The method of claim 8 further comprising defining deviation of the drilling unit from the at least one target pose on the basis of the defined orientation of the drilling unit and the target pose information, and generating the tramming assistance information on the basis of the defined deviation of the orientation of the drilling unit from the at least one target pose (see previously rejected claim 3).
Claim 13. Eilo in view of Launis teaches: The method of claim 8 further comprising: generating a graphical user interface view indicative of at least the orientation of the drilling unit and the at least one target pose, and displaying the graphical user interface view during the tramming of the drilling rig for assisting an operator to control the tramming of the drilling rig to a drilling position for carrying out a drilling operation according to a drilling plan (see previously rejected claim 6).
Claim 14. Eilo in view of Launis teaches: The method of claim 8 wherein the step of generating the tramming assistance information includes defining a steering control instruction for autonomous steering operation or for guiding an operator to control steering of the drilling rig (see previously rejected claim 7).
Claim 15. Eilo in view of Launis teaches: A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer program code for, which when executed in a data processing apparatus, to cause causes the method in accordance with claim 8 to be performed (Eilo: [0022-0027] or Launis: Pg. 12, lines 24-25; inherent to control unit to process and display measurements and deviations).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eilo et al. (US2008/0230270) in view of Launis (WO2018184916) and further in view of Tuunanen (US2014/0157860).
Claim 4. Eilo in view of Launis teaches: The drilling rig of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, and define the orientation of the drilling unit (Launis: Pg. 19, lines 20-35)) on the basis of the received information on orientation of the carrier (Eilo: [0022-0027] or Launis: surrounding surfaces and obstacles; Pg. 19, lines 20-35) and joint position information from joint position sensors (Launis: 12 sensors, Fig. 1) of a plurality of joints between the carrier and the drilling unit (Launis: Fig. 1). Eilo in view of Launis does not teach: receive information on orientation of the carrier from a gyroscope included in the carrier.
Tuunanen discloses a method for measuring the inclination of a drilling apparatus comprising of a carrier and boom. Therefore, Tuunanen teaches: receive information on orientation of the carrier from a gyroscope included in the carrier (8 inclination measurement device, [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the carrier of Eilo to include the inclination measurement device as taught by Tuunanen in order to incorporate a device to determine orientation and position of movable drilling devices with a reasonable expectation of success as taught by Tunnanen ([0002]).
Claim 11. Eilo in view of Launis and further in view of Tuunanen teaches: The method of claim 8, further comprising receiving orientation of the carrier from a gyroscope comprised by the carrier and defining the orientation of the drilling unit on the basis of the received orientation of the carrier and joint position information from joint position sensors of a plurality of joints between the carrier and the drilling unit (see previously rejected claim 4).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eilo et al. (US20080230270 in view of Launis (WO2018184916) , Rokbi (US6152244), and Suvanen (201600112678).
Claim 5. Eilo in view of Launis teaches: The drilling rig of claim 1, the carrier pose information being indicative of orientation of the first carrier portion, and wherein the control means are configured the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor for defining the orientation of the drilling unit (see previously rejected claim 4). Eilo in view of Launis does not teach: the carrier includes a first carrier portion and a second carrier portion interconnected by a carrier joint and the control means are configured to use information on position of the carrier joint as an input.
Rokbi discloses a mobile drilling device comprising of a front and rear chassis coupled to by an intermediate articulation. Therefore, Rokbi teaches: the carrier includes a first carrier portion (1 front chassis, Fig. 1) and a second carrier portion (2 rear chassis, Fig. 1) interconnected by a carrier joint (5 intermediate articulation, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the single chassis carrier of Eilo into a double chassis carrier with an intermediate articulation as taught by Rokbi with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have a drilling rig with better lateral stability when turning and a smaller bulk as taught by Rokbi (Col. 2, lines 19-23).
Suvanen discloses rock drilling rig comprising of sensors, other measuring devices, or other positioning detecting means for determining the position of the drilling unit. Therefore, Suvanen further teaches: to use information on position of the carrier joint as an input (9 sensors, Fig. 1; [0041, 0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the drilling rig of Eilo by including the angle sensors as taught by Suvanen to determine the joint position of the carriers with a reasonable expectation of success as taught Suvanen ([0041]).
Claim 12. Eilo in view of Launis, Rokbi and Suvanen teach: The method of claim 8, wherein the carrier includes a first carrier portion and a second carrier portion interconnected by a carrier joint, wherein the carrier pose information is indicative of orientation of the first carrier portion, and information on position of the carrier joint from joint position sensors is used as an input for defining the orientation of the drilling unit (see previously rejected claim 5).
Conclusion
Examiner finds claims 5 and 12 to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims add a particular machine, specifically “carrier includes a first carrier portion and a second carrier portion interconnected by a carrier joint “ which integrates the abstract idea into a practical solution and may amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. While the claims may be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims depend on an ineligible claim and therefore also rejected as instantly claimed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Craig whose telephone number is (571)270-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights