DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 13 November 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, and 22 remain pending in the application. Claims 3, 10, 12-21, and 23 were previously withdrawn as being drawn to non-elected Inventions. The previous Office Action was mailed 18 August 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Gordon (2021/0246364) (cited previously).
The rejections over Gordon are provided merely to illustrate the breadth of the current claims. Applicant may incorporate claim 11 to overcome Gordon, but Applicant should also carefully consider the rejections over Wawrzos below.
Regarding independent claim 1, Gordon discloses A drilling fluid (abstract “Fracturing fluids … may also use proppant particulates composed of fluid coke material”) comprising:
lost circulation particles comprising fluid coke and/or flexicoke, wherein flexicoke is at least partially gasified coke (abstract “particulates composed of fluid coke material”), the lost circulation particles having a particle density of equal to or less than about 1.6 g/cc ([0046] “The apparent density of the fluid coke proppant particulates of the present disclosure may be in the range of … about 1.4 g/cm3 to about 1.6 g/cm3”); and
a weighting agent ([0056] “In addition, certain fracturing fluids suitable for use in the present disclosure may contain one or more additives such as, for example, dilute aids, biocides, breakers, corrosion inhibitors, crosslinkers, friction reducers (e.g., polyacrylamides), gels, salts (e.g., KCl), oxygen scavengers, pH control additives, scale inhibitors, surfactants, weighting agents, inert solids, fluid loss control agents, emulsifiers, emulsion thinners, emulsion thickeners, viscosifying agents, particulates, lost circulation materials, foaming agents, gases, buffers, stabilizers, chelating agents, mutual solvents, oxidizers, reducers, clay stabilizing agents, and an combination thereof”).
As above, the references to “drilling” and “lost circulation” appear to merely be statements of intended use. During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2111.02 Effect of Preamble. In this case, because the recitations of “drilling” and “lost circulation” do not appear to result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art, the recitations of “drilling” and “lost circulation” do not appear to limit the claim. Accordingly, Gordon provides “A drilling fluid” with “lost circulation particles” and “weighting agent” as claimed, by providing a fluid comprising particles of fluid coke having a particle density of ≤1.6 g/cc and weighting agents.
Regarding claim 2, Gordon discloses wherein the lost circulation particles are composed of fluid coke (abstract “particulates composed of fluid coke material”).
Regarding claim 4, Gordon discloses wherein the lost circulation particles have a particle density in the range of about 1.4 g/cc to about 1.6 g/cc ([0046] “The apparent density of the fluid coke proppant particulates of the present disclosure may be in the range of … about 1.4 g/cm3 to about 1.6 g/cm3”).
Regarding claim 5, Gordon discloses wherein the lost circulation particles have a crush strength of about 3000 psi to about 12000 psi ([0049] “the crush strength of the fluid coke proppant particulates described herein may be in the range of about 3000 psi to about 12,000 psi”).
Regarding claim 6, Gordon discloses wherein the lost circulation particles have an average particle size distribution in the range of about 50 µm to about 2500 µm ([0048] “The fluid coke proppant particulates described herein are comparable in particle diameter size having a D50 of about 50 μm to about 500 μm, or about 100 μm to about 400 μm, or about 150 μm to about 350 μm”).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Gordon discloses “the shape of the fluid coke proppant particulates described herein exhibit a Krumbein value for both sphericity and roundness that is ≥0.6” ([0050]). Accordingly, Gordon discloses:
(claim 7) wherein the lost circulation particles have a Krumbein sphericity of ≥ 0.6; and/or
(claim 8) wherein the lost circulation particles have a Krumbein roundness value of ≥ 0.6
Regarding claim 9, Gordon discloses second lost circulation particles composed of a material that is not fluid coke or flexicoke ([0057] “Other proppant particulate types that may be utilized with the fluid coke proppant particulates described herein include, but are not limited to, the traditional sand proppant particulates described herein, as well as those made from bauxite, ceramic, glass, and any combination thereof”).
For example, Applicant may see the reference to Beardmore below, which provides evidence that “sand,” “ceramics,” “glass beads,” and other proppant materials may be used as lost circulation materials (Beardmore abstract and [0036]).
Regarding claim 22, Gordon discloses further comprising one or more of cement, a dilute aid, a biocide, a breaker, a corrosion inhibitor, a crosslinker, a friction reducer, a gelling agent, a salt, an oxygen scavenger, a pH control additive, a scale inhibitor, a surfactant, an inert solid, a fluid loss control agent, an emulsifier, an emulsion thinner, an emulsion thickener, a viscosifying agent, a foaming agent, a buffer, a stabilizer, a chelating agent, a mutual solvent, an oxidizer, a reducer, a clay stabilizing agent, or any combination thereof ([0056] “In addition, certain fracturing fluids suitable for use in the present disclosure may contain one or more additives such as, for example, dilute aids, biocides, breakers, corrosion inhibitors, crosslinkers, friction reducers (e.g., polyacrylamides), gels, salts (e.g., KCl), oxygen scavengers, pH control additives, scale inhibitors, surfactants, weighting agents, inert solids, fluid loss control agents, emulsifiers, emulsion thinners, emulsion thickeners, viscosifying agents, particulates, lost circulation materials, foaming agents, gases, buffers, stabilizers, chelating agents, mutual solvents, oxidizers, reducers, clay stabilizing agents, and an combination thereof”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 11, and 22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wawrzos (2009/0075847) in view of Beardmore (2010/0300760) (both cited previously).
Regarding independent claim 1, Wawrzos discloses A drilling fluid (abstract “A method for increasing drilling rates by reducing torque and drag in hostile environments such as high pressure, high temperature, and horizontal wells is provided by adding chemically and thermally inert spherical carbon beads to the drilling fluid” and [0008] “additives are used to supplement the drilling fluid to provide additional properties, such as loss circulation control or additional lubricity… See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 5,826,669 which describes a method of preventing or controlling the loss of well drilling fluid into the pores and fractures of subterranean rock formations while providing lubrication properties by the addition of resilient graphitic carbon particles to the drilling fluid”; i.e., Gordon’s spherical carbon beads provide both loss circulation control and additional lubricity) comprising:
lost circulation particles comprising fluid coke and/or flexicoke, wherein flexicoke is at least partially gasified coke ([0014] “The present invention is directed to the addition of spherical carbon beads, preferably in the form of shot coke or fluid coke, to a well drilling fluid … Fluid coke is the byproduct of a pyrolytic upgrading of heavy hydrocarbons, which use fluidized bed techniques”), the lost circulation particles having a particle density of equal to or less than about 1.6 g/cc ([0026] “The density of the spherical carbonaceous materials is also an aspect of the present invention. Preferably, the materials have a true density, as measured with a pycnometer, of from about 1.45 g/cc to about 2.2 g/cc”)…
Regarding the “weighting agent,” Wawrzos discloses in the Background “Drilling fluid, also called drilling mud, plays a critical role in rotary drilling for oil and gas exploration and production. Drilling fluids are formulated to provide suspension, pressure control, stabilization of formations, buoyancy, as well as lubrication and cooling, during well bore drilling” ([0006]) wherein “In many hostile environments, additives are used to supplement the drilling fluid to provide additional properties, such as loss circulation control or additional lubricity. Common additives include advanced synthetic polymers, glass or ceramic beads, and graphite particulates” ([0008]).
However, Wawrzos does not specify if the “additives” include weighting agents.
Nevertheless, weighting agents are rather well-known drilling fluid additives. For example, Beardmore teaches in the Background that “The drilling muds used for drilling oil and gas wells have been developed with weighting (densifying) agents to provide sufficient head pressure to prevent the initial release of high pressure fluids and gases from the formation” ([0004]).
Accordingly, 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 Wawrzos to include weighting (densifying) agents as in Beardmore, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to “supplement the drilling fluid to provide additional properties” (as in Wawrzos) such as “sufficient head pressure to prevent the initial release of high pressure fluids and gases from the formation” (as in Beardmore).
Second, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements (known drilling fluids, fluid coke, weighting agents) according to known techniques (combining additives in a drilling fluid) in a manner that achieves predictable results (loss circulation control, additional lubricity, and sufficient head pressure). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness.
As above, Wawrzos discloses “The density of the spherical carbonaceous materials is also an aspect of the present invention. Preferably, the materials have a true density, as measured with a pycnometer, of from about 1.45 g/cc to about 2.2 g/cc. This helps to ensure that the particles remain suspended in the drilling fluid to which they are added” ([0026]), which plainly anticipates the range of 1.45-1.6 g/cc particle density. Alternatively, even if it were somehow found that Wawrzos fails to anticipate this range per se, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wawrzos to include the fluid coke particles having a particle density of 1.45-1.6 g/cc, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a suitable density “to ensure that the particles remain suspended in the drilling fluid to which they are added” within the general conditions disclosed by Wawrzos. Applicant may note that, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Applicant may note that Wawrzos discloses “In many hostile environments, additives are used to supplement the drilling fluid to provide additional properties, such as loss circulation control or additional lubricity. Common additives include advanced synthetic polymers, glass or ceramic beads, and graphite particulates. Such graphite particulates may be in the form of naturally occurring, amorphous, or synthetic graphite. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 5,826,669 which describes a method of preventing or controlling the loss of well drilling fluid into the pores and fractures of subterranean rock formations while providing lubrication properties by the addition of resilient graphitic carbon particles to the drilling fluid” ([0008]). Thus, although Wawrzos is primarily concerned with the lubricity provided by the spherical carbon beads, these would also provide lost circulation control by acting as lost circulation particles.
Applicant should note that "the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." See MPEP 2112. Also, mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention, and "[t]he fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." See MPEP 2145. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Here, Wawrzos provides the same structure (fluid coke particles), and thus the same properties (lost circulation control) are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 2, Wawrzos discloses wherein the lost circulation particles are composed of fluid coke ([0014] “fluid coke”).
Regarding claim 4, as in claim 1, Wawrzos discloses “The density of the spherical carbonaceous materials is also an aspect of the present invention. Preferably, the materials have a true density, as measured with a pycnometer, of from about 1.45 g/cc to about 2.2 g/cc. This helps to ensure that the particles remain suspended in the drilling fluid to which they are added” ([0026]), which plainly anticipates “wherein the lost circulation particles have a particle density in the range of about 1.4 g/cc to about 1.6 g/cc” in the range of 1.45-1.6 g/cc particle density.
Alternatively, even if it were somehow found that Wawrzos fails to anticipate this range per se, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wawrzos to include the fluid coke particles having a particle density of 1.45-1.6 g/cc, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a suitable density “to ensure that the particles remain suspended in the drilling fluid to which they are added” within the general conditions disclosed by Wawrzos. See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Regarding claim 5, Wawrzos discloses “The resiliency of the spherical carbon particulates affects the compressive strength performance and onion layer separation needed during friction reduction” ([0023]) wherein “The compressive strength of resilient materials is determined in a similar fashion, with resiliency measurements being taken at 10,000 psi, 5,000 psi, and 3,500 psi while being cycled to acquire a minimum of 20 data points. The compressive strength of the spherical carbonaceous materials of the present invention allows resiliency to remain consistent over multiple pressure ranges and cyclic compressions, as seen in FIG. 1” ([0025]).
The resiliency data in Fig. 1 shows that the spherical carbon particulates can withstand compressive strengths of 10,000 psi, 5,000 psi, and 3,500 psi. Thus, Wawrzos discloses “wherein the lost circulation particles have a crush strength of about 3000 psi to about 12000 psi.”
Alternatively, even if it were somehow found that Wawrzos fails to anticipate this range per se, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wawrzos to include the fluid coke particles having crush strengths of 3000-12000 psi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a suitable compressive strength for resiliency within the general conditions disclosed by Wawrzos. See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Regarding claim 6, Wawrzos discloses “In some applications the preferred particle size distribution is 100% passing through a 200-mesh screen (i.e., -200 mesh) so that the lubricating material will pass through the shaker screens used in filtering the cuttings from the drilling mud. The preferred particle size distribution is 90% or more of the particles passing through a 20 mesh screen and being retained on a 200 mesh screen (i.e., -20 mesh to +200 mesh). Ideally, between 50% and 80% of the particles are between 60 mesh and 100 mesh in size (-60 mesh to +100 mesh)” ([0022]). 20-200 mesh is 75-850 µm, while 60-100 mesh is 150-250 µm. Accordingly, Wawrzos discloses “wherein the lost circulation particles have an average particle size distribution in the range of about 50 µm to about 2500 µm.”
Regarding claim 9, Wawrzos does not appear to actually add any additives to Wawrzos’s own drilling fluid other than the spherical carbon beads.
Nevertheless, Wawrzos teaches “Drilling fluid, also called drilling mud, plays a critical role in rotary drilling for oil and gas exploration and production. Drilling fluids are formulated to provide suspension, pressure control, stabilization of formations, buoyancy, as well as lubrication and cooling, during well bore drilling” ([0006]) wherein “In many hostile environments, additives are used to supplement the drilling fluid to provide additional properties, such as loss circulation control or additional lubricity. Common additives include advanced synthetic polymers, glass or ceramic beads, and graphite particulates” ([0008]).
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 Wawrzos to include additional additives such as advanced synthetic polymers, glass or ceramic beads, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to “supplement the drilling fluid to provide additional properties, such as loss circulation control” (thereby including “second lost circulation particles composed of a material that is not fluid coke or flexicoke”).
Regarding claim 11, Wawrzos discloses “The density of the spherical carbonaceous materials is also an aspect of the present invention. Preferably, the materials have a true density, as measured with a pycnometer, of from about 1.45 g/cc to about 2.2 g/cc. This helps to ensure that the particles remain suspended in the drilling fluid to which they are added” ([0026]).
However, Wawrzos fails to disclose if the density of the drilling fluid is designed to create a hydraulic pressure at the drill bit higher than a pore pressure to prevent fluid influx.
Nevertheless, this is a rather well-known design goal for drilling fluids. For example, Beardmore teaches “specially sized granular lost circulation material solids in the drilling mud which work together to close and seal leaking formations and fractures” (abstract) wherein “In the process of drilling oil and gas wells, drilling mud is injected into the center of the drill string to flow down to the drillbit and back up to the surface in the annulus between the outside of the wellbore and drillstring to carry the drill cuttings away from the bottom of the wellbore and out of the hole. The drilling mud is also used to prevent blowouts or kicks when the borehole is kept substantially full of drilling mud by maintaining head pressure on the formations being penetrated by the drillbit. A blowout or kick occurs when high pressure fluids such as oil and gas in downhole formations are released into the wellbore and rise rapidly to the surface. At the surface these fluids can potential release considerable energy that is hazardous to people and equipment. The drilling muds used for drilling oil and gas wells have been developed with weighting (densifying) agents to provide sufficient head pressure to prevent the initial release of high pressure fluids and gases from the formation” ([0004]).
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 Wawrzos to include weighting agents to the drilling fluid, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to “provide sufficient head pressure to prevent the initial release of high pressure fluids and gases from the formation” (thereby including “wherein density of the drilling fluid is sufficiently high to create a hydraulic pressure at a drill bit that is higher than a pore pressure of a subterranean formation being drilled to prevent an influx of fluid into a well being drilled”).
Regarding claim 22, Wawrzos discloses further comprising one or more of cement, a dilute aid, a biocide, a breaker, a corrosion inhibitor, a crosslinker, a friction reducer ([0027] “Graphitized fluid coke (such as GlideGraph 7001 and 9400, supplied by Superior Graphite Co., Chicago, Ill.) has been used as a friction reducer in the oil field market since 1998”), a gelling agent, a salt, an oxygen scavenger, a pH control additive, a scale inhibitor, a surfactant, an inert solid (abstract “chemically and thermally inert spherical carbon beads”), a fluid loss control agent ([0008] “additives are used to supplement the drilling fluid to provide additional properties, such as loss circulation control”; lost circulation is a type of fluid loss), an emulsifier, an emulsion thinner, an emulsion thickener, a viscosifying agent, a foaming agent, a buffer, a stabilizer ([0006] “Drilling fluids are formulated to provide suspension, pressure control, stabilization of formations, buoyancy, as well as lubrication and cooling, during well bore drilling”), a chelating agent, a mutual solvent, an oxidizer, a reducer, a clay stabilizing agent ([0006] “Drilling fluids are formulated to provide suspension, pressure control, stabilization of formations, buoyancy, as well as lubrication and cooling, during well bore drilling”), or any combination thereof.
Although not required to render obvious the claim, Applicant may also note that Beardmore teaches many similar additives, such as “crushed cement” ([0036]); salt ([0028] “salt and fresh water”); a fluid loss control agent ([0030] “particles that collect at the fractures, fissures, vugs and porous regions to close off these openings to further fluid loss”); and a stabilizer ([0031] “To enhance the effectiveness of the particles in sealing these openings like porous formations and induced fractures, a combination of a drill string having certain physical characteristics along with a preferred selection of lost circulation material present in the drilling fluid has shown surprising results in maintaining the stability of the walls of the wellbore”). Applicant may also see the additives in Brookey cited below (Brookey [0012]).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wawrzos in view of Beardmore as in claim 1, and further in view of Brookey (2003/0201103) (cited previously).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Wawrzos discloses “The present invention is directed to the addition of spherical carbon beads, preferably in the form of shot coke or fluid coke, to a well drilling fluid” ([0014]) wherein “The final fluid coke consists of spherical particles with a smooth non-porous surface and an "onion-like" internal structure” ([0015]).
However, Wawrzos fails to specify what these “spherical” particles with a “smooth non-porous surface” would be in terms of Krumbein sphericity and roundness.
Brookey teaches “compositions and methods of use of fluids useful for sealing formation fractures and/or inhibiting downhole fluid loss” (abstract) wherein “a LCM pill composition comprises lightweight particulates suspended in a liquid and sent to the formation fracture zone through either a pumping or spotting technique” and “The more critical feature of these particles is their shape or surface characteristics. … In addition, the hollow particles should have a sphericity of 0.5 or greater and a roundness of 0.3 or greater according to the Krumbein and Shoss chart for visual estimation of roundness and sphericity. In a more preferred embodiment the particles will have a sphericity and roundness of 0.9 or greater” ([0027]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wawrzos’s spherical carbon beads to have a Krumbein sphericity and roundness of 0.9 or greater, which would thus provide:
(claim 7) wherein the lost circulation particles have a Krumbein sphericity of ≥ 0.6; and/or
(claim 8) wherein the lost circulation particles have a Krumbein roundness value of ≥ 0.6,
with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide “spherical particles with a smooth non-porous surface” as in Wawrzos for an LCM pill with critical features within the general conditions taught by Brookey. See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 13 November 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102/103 over Wawrzos have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC § 103 over Wawrzos in view of Beardmore, and Applicant’s arguments do not apply to those new grounds of rejections.
Applicant states “As contended by the Applicants in the previous response, Wawrzos only discloses the use of coke particles to lubricate a spinning drill bit while a well is being drilled” (p.13).
However, Wawrzos discloses in the Background that Wawrzos’s invention is within the class of additives which impart loss circulation control and lubrication ([0008]). Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC § 102 over Gordon have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant states “The addition of a weighting agent to claim 1 addresses the Examiner's position that no physical difference exists between the Applicants' claims and the particles disclosed in Gordon” (p.10).
However, as above, Gordon discloses a weighting agent. Accordingly, no physical difference appears to exist between Applicant’s claims and Gordon’s disclosure.
Second, Applicant states “In the present case, the Applicants assert that the terms "drilling fluid" and "lost circulation particles" in claim 1 should be interpreted as meaningful limitations to the claim and not as mere statements of intended use. This is because the particles of the present disclosure and claims are used for a totally different purpose than the particles of Gordon” (p.11) and proceeds to describe the different uses vs. Gordon (p.11-12).
However, Applicant should note that a different use or purpose without clear structural difference is precisely an intended use without more. As above, Gordon provides the same composition as claimed, including all structural elements of the fluid coke particles intended for use as loss circulation particles. Accordingly, Gordon must be providing a fluid which meets the claim.
Applicant does not appear to point to any structural differences between the claimed invention and the prior art which result from the recited purpose or intended use. To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. MPEP 2111.02. In this case, Gordon’s fluid is capable of performing the intended use as recited. Accordingly, the recited purpose or intended use cannot distinguish the claimed invention from Gordon.
Nevertheless, Applicant may incorporate into the claims additional structural features which are particular to drilling fluids and cannot be performed by fracturing fluids as in Gordon. For example, as previously, claim 11 may be incorporated into claim 1 to overcome Gordon.
In the case of further Amendments, Applicant is advised to consider what are the critical features of the current Invention, and how do these critical features interact in the Invention in order to produce the unique phenomena of the Invention.
As above, Applicant may incorporate claim 11 into claim 1 to overcome Gordon. However, Applicant should also consider Amendments to overcome Wawrzos in view of Beardmore.
Nevertheless, Applicant is advised to beware the inclusion of New Matter.
As always, Applicant may consider contacting the Examiner for an Interview or the like, in the case further explanation or guidance is desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SUE-AKO whose telephone number is (571)272-9455. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-24137. 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.
/ANDREW SUE-AKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674