DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 15, the Applicant argues that “In one aspect, the claimed features are integrated into practical applications because they improve existing drilling technology. This is discussed in detail throughout the application. For example, the present application relates to drilling operations. See application at [0002]. As explained in the Specification, ‘in drilling for the extraction of minerals, numerous devices are positioned along a drill string, and each device can encounter various interest points within a borehole’ and ‘[s]uch interest points may affect the progress of the drill string components within the borehole and/or during travelling into and/or out of the borehole….’”
While the specification discusses improvements to drilling technology, the claims do not reflect any improvement to drilling technology. The MPEP states that “the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification” (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). The claims of the instant application recite very general and extremely broad limitations that neither discuss a technical problem nor do they recite a technical solution to the problem. The claims have very broadly recited limitations such as “a plurality of device indicators…”, “determining a position of each drill string component relative to an interest point…” and “controlling a characteristic of each device indicator…”. These limitations do not suggest any improvement to the state of drilling technology. What exactly is “an interest point”? What technical problem does this limitation entail? Furthermore, the recitation of “controlling a characteristic of each device indicator” is very broadly recited such this limitation does not mean that the physical state of the system is changing/improving and is further rendered to an abstract idea because this step can be performed by aa human using pen and paper. The claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, i.e. drilling technology.
An example of an improvement is discussed in at least para[0064] of the specification of the instant application which discusses “delaying one or more drilling operations in order to avoid potential problems resulting from the point of interest” or “postponing a slide, performing and/or initiating a slide sooner than planned, extending a slide, changing RPM, WOB, mud flow”. Adding such limitations into the claims integrates the judicial exception into a practical application because the above examples from the disclosure reflects a physical change and improvement to the drilling system; however, as the claims are currently presented, there are no limitations which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements of “processors” which perform the abstract idea is not significantly more than judicial exception.
For at least the above reason, the claims remain rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 15, the limitation “wherein the interest point is a location with at least one characteristic of the borehole” is very broadly recited as the claim does not specify what “at least one characteristic of the borehole” entails. Is “characteristic” temperature? Pressure? Maybe depth? The claim does not recite a specific definition for “characteristic”. Due to the broadness of the above limitation, Whalley teaches the above limitation. Whalley teaches the wellbore “depth” which is a “characteristic of the borehole”. In at least para[0013] and [0029], Whalley discusses that that the depth zone comprises a range of depths in the well. The depth zone is defined by an upper depth and a lower depth and the range of depths is the depths between the upper depth and the lower depth. This teaching meets the limitation of “wherein the interest point is a location with at least one characteristic of the borehole”.
For the above reason, the claims remain rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to 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 are directed to a method (process), claims 9-14 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (machine) and claims 15-20 are directed to a system (machine). 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, 9 and 15 recite abstract limitations including:
“providing a plurality of device indicators on a user interface, each device indicator corresponding to a drill string component along a drill string; determining a position of each drill string component relative to an interest point along a borehole, wherein the interest point is a location with at least one characteristic of the borehole; and controlling a characteristic of each device indicator based on the position of the particular drill string component relative to the interest point” (claim 1), “displaying a plurality of device indicators on a user interface, each device indicator corresponding to a drill string component along a drill string; determining a position of each drill string component relative to an interest point along a borehole, wherein the interest point is a location with at least one characteristic of the borehole; and controlling a characteristic of each device indicator based on the position of the particular drill string component relative to the interest point.” (claim 9) and “identifying a plurality of drill string components along a drill string; for each drill string component, identifying one or more interest points along a borehole, wherein the one or more interest points are one or more locations with at least one characteristic of the borehole; tracking each drill string component within the borehole and relative to the corresponding one or more interest points; and generating an output response based on the tracking of each drill string component relative to the corresponding one or more interest points along the borehole.” (claim 15).
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. For example, regarding claim 1, the limitation of "providing a plurality of device indicators on a user interface, each device indicator corresponding to a drill string component along a drill string" is an abstract ideas because under BRI this limitation can be interpreted as an operator writing down symbols on a piece of paper, where each symbol corresponds to a drill string component. Furthermore, the step of “determining a position of each drill string component relative to an interest point along a borehole” can be performed in the mind because an operator can look at positional data, e.g. camera image, and determine a position of each drill string component. Finally, the step of “controlling a characteristic of each device indicator based on the position of the particular drill string component relative to the interest point” can be interpreted as the operator changing a symbol that corresponds to a particular device from a “x” to a “o” using pen and paper. The mere recitation of generic computing elements does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Mental processes cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as well as decision-making steps which encompasses the limitations listed above. The claims do not require any action as currently worded. Thus, the claims recite abstract ideas.
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.
Claim 9 recites the additional element of “a plurality of instructions executable by one or more processors”. Claim 15 similarly recites the additional element of “non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a plurality of instructions executable by the processor”.
The recitation of “processor” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical applications because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
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).
Regarding the recitation of a “processor”, this element merely amounts to “apply it.” The “processor” contains mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add
significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 2-8, 10-14 and 16-20, these claims recite limitations that further add to the abstract ideas recited in claims 1, 9 and 15. Nothing in the claims preclude the limitations of the claims from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. For example, the limitation of “predicting a status of the drill string component over a projected interval and providing an indication of the predicted status.” (claim 2) is abstract because an operator can perform the step of “predicting a status…” in the mind and step of “providing an indication” with symbols using pen and paper. Furthermore, the limitation of “mapping the plurality of device indicators corresponding to placement of the drill string components along the drill string” (claim 8) can be a drawing of the drillstring components using pen and paper. Finally, the limitation of “providing an alert on a user interface of a current position of each drill string component relative to the one or more interest points.” (claim 19) can be interpreted as indicating on a mapped drawing of the drilling system where the current position of each drill string component relative to the one or more interest points (e.g. the surface). Therefore, similar to claims 1, 9 and 15, these claims recite limitations that do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea and are not significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whalley (U.S. Publication No. 20150193126).
Regarding claim 1, Whalley teaches a method comprising:
providing a plurality of device indicators (320 and 324; Fig.3-6) on a user interface (226), each device indicator corresponding to a drill string component (list of drill string component 318; Fig. 3, 4) along a drill string (drill string as shown; Fig. 3, pp[0014]);
determining a position of each drill string component (measured depth 316; Fig. 3) relative to an interest point along a borehole,(“point of interest” comprises drill system failure such as torque failure or buckling; pp[0022], Fig. 3, 4), wherein the interest point is a location with at least one characteristic of the borehole (“at least one characteristic of the borehole” is that the depth zone comprises a range of depths in the well. The depth zone is defined by an upper depth and a lower depth and the range of depths is the depths between the upper depth and the lower depth.; pp[0013], [0029]); and
controlling a characteristic of each device indicator based on the position of the particular drill string component relative to the interest point (If cell 324 contained a value, such as an "x," that would indicate that the drilling system 100 had experienced torque failure at a measured depth; pp[0022]).
Regarding claim 2, Whalley teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising predicting a status of the drill string component over a projected interval and providing an indication of the predicted status (The planning tool 236 will predict the type and location of a drill system failure (or failures); pp[0025])
Regarding claim 3, Whalley teaches the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the characteristic comprises providing a first characteristic (an “x” in a box 324) based on the position of the drill string component being at the position of the one or more interest points (position of each drill pipe from any of the drill system failures 320, i.e. “interest points” because the depth of the drill system failures 320 will be known; pp[0021], [0022]) and providing a second characteristic (leaving box 324 empty) based on the position of the drill string component being different from the position of the one or more interest points (position of each drill pipe from any of the drill system failures 320, i.e. “interest points” because the depth of the drill system failures 320 will be known; pp[0021], [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Whalley teaches the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the characteristic comprises controlling at least one of a color of the indicator, a size of the indicator, or a shape of the indicator (“x” is a shape which is used to indicate a drill system failure; pp[0022]).
Regarding claim 5, Whalley teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising displaying a mapping of the borehole with the one or more interest points and a mapping of the drill string relative to the one or more interest points (borehole is mapped 232 which illustrated drill string relative to the areas with buckling/other drill system failures; pp[0022], Fig. 3,4).
Regarding claim 6, Whalley teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the device indicator comprises a current status indicator, and wherein controlling the characteristic of the device indicator comprises controlling a characteristic of the current status indicator based on a present condition of the drill string component (the drilling control system 145 uses the collected data to estimate where in the drilling system such failures have occurred. An empty or blank cell indicates that the drill system failure associated with the column that intersects at that cell is not present at the depth associated with the row that intersects at that cell and the presence of a value, such as an "x," indicates that the corresponding fault has occurred at the corresponding depth; pp[0009], [0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Whalley teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the device indicator comprises a projected status indicator, and wherein controlling the characteristic of the device indicator comprises controlling a characteristic of the projected status indicator based on a predicted future condition of the drill string component (The planning tool 236 will predict the type and location of a drill system failure (or failures) under those circumstances. In one embodiment, the planning tool 236 sets the flags in the failure flag field 218 or the other fields 220 corresponding to the identified fault (or faults) in the data record or data records 212a-n that correspond to the location of the identified fault (or faults). For example, if the planning tool 236 predicts that the drill string 110 will experience sinusoidal buckling at 4530 feet of measured depth; pp[0025]).
Regarding claim 8, Whalley teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising mapping the plurality of device indicators corresponding to placement of the drill string components along the drill string (the indicators 324 correspond to each drill pipe/ component type which is mapped 232; Figs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 9, Whalley teaches ton-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a plurality of instructions executable by one or more processors, which, when executed on the one or more processors (A processor with access to the memory generates and transmits for display on a graphical user interface a schematic of a portion of the drill string; Abstract, pp[0032], claim 8) cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising:
displaying a plurality of device indicators (320 and 324; Figs. 3-6) on a user interface (226), each device indicator corresponding to a drill string component (list of drill string component 318; Fig. 3, 4 along a drill string (drill string as shown; Fig. 3, pp[0014]);
determining a position of each drill string component (measured depth 316; Fig. 3)relative to an interest point along a borehole (“point of interest” comprises drill system failure such as torque failure or buckling; pp[0022], Fig. 3, 4), wherein the interest point is a location with at least one characteristic of the borehole (“at least one characteristic of the borehole” is that the depth zone comprises a range of depths in the well. The depth zone is defined by an upper depth and a lower depth and the range of depths is the depths between the upper depth and the lower depth.; pp[0013], [0029]); and
controlling a characteristic of each device indicator based on the position of the particular drill string component relative to the interest point (If cell 324 contained a value, such as an "x," that would indicate that the drilling system 100 had experienced a drilling system failure at a measured depth; pp[0022]).
Regarding claim 10, Whalley teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the instructions further comprise instructions, which, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising: providing a first alert based on the position of the drill string component being at the position of the one or more interest points and providing a second alert based on the position of the drill string component being different from the position of the one or more interest points (“the processor causes an alarm icon, such as a triangle with an overlaid exclamation point, and text indicating the type of failure and details of the depth where the failure occurred to be displayed on the graphical user interface 226 adjacent to the shaded areas. For example, in the embodiment shown in FIG. 4, the depth zones representing 4530-4830, 4830-5160, and 7200-16550 feet have been shaded. In addition, an alarm icon and the text "Sinusoidal Buckling 4530-4830 ft" is displayed adjacent to the 4530-4830 foot shaded area..”; pp[0026])
Regarding claim 11, Whalley teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the instructions further comprise instructions, which, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising: controlling at least one of a color of the indicator, a size of the indicator, or a shape of the indicator (“x” is a shape which is used to indicate a drill system failure; pp[0022]).
Regarding claim 12, Whalley teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the instructions further comprise instructions, which, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising: displaying a mapping of the borehole with the one or more interest points and a mapping of the drill string relative to the one or more interest points (borehole is mapped 232 which illustrated drill string relative to the areas with drill system failures (point of interest); pp[0022], Fig. 3,4).
Regarding claim 13, Whalley teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the instructions further comprise instructions, which, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising: controlling a characteristic of a current status indicator based on a present condition of the drill string component (an empty or blank cell indicates that the drill system failure associated with the column that intersects at that cell is not present at the depth associated with the row that intersects at that cell and the presence of a value, such as an "x," indicates that the corresponding fault has occurred at the corresponding depth; Figs. 3-5, pp[0022]); and controlling a characteristic of a projected status indicator based on a predicted future condition of the drill string component (“The planning tool 236 will predict the type and location of a drill system failure (or failures) under those circumstances. In one embodiment, the planning tool 236 sets the flags in the failure flag field 218 or the other fields 220 corresponding to the identified fault (or faults) in the data record or data records 212a-n that correspond to the location of the identified fault (or faults). For example, if the planning tool 236 predicts that the drill string 110 will experience sinusoidal buckling at 4530 feet of measured depth, in one embodiment the planning tool 236 will set the failure flag field 218 or other field 220 associated with the sinusoidal buckling failure in the data record 212a-n which has a depth zone field 214 that includes 4530 feet.”; pp[0025]).
Regarding claim 14, Whalley teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the instructions further comprise instructions, which, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising: mapping the plurality of device indicators corresponding to placement of the drill string components along the drill string (the indicators 324 correspond to each drill pipe/ component type which is mapped 232; Figs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 15, Walley teaches a system comprising: a processor; and non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a plurality of instructions executable by the processor (A processor with access to the memory generates and transmits for display on a graphical user interface a schematic of a portion of the drill string; Abstract, pp[0032], claim 8, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising:
identifying a plurality of drill string components (list of drill string component 318; Fig. 3, 4) along a drill string (drill string as shown; Figs. 3-6, pp[0014]);
for each drill string component, identifying one or more interest points along a borehole (“point of interest” comprises drill system failure such as torque failure or buckling; pp[0022], Fig. 3-5), wherein the one or more interest points are one or more locations with at least one characteristic of the borehole (“at least one characteristic of the borehole” is that the depth zone comprises a range of depths in the well. The depth zone is defined by an upper depth and a lower depth and the range of depths is the depths between the upper depth and the lower depth.; pp[0013], [0029]);
tracking each drill string component within the borehole and relative to the corresponding one or more interest points (Figs. 3-4, pp[0022]-[0026]); and
generating an output response based on the tracking of each drill string component relative to the corresponding one or more interest points along the borehole (the processor causes an alarm icon, such as a triangle with an overlaid exclamation point, and text indicating the type of failure and details of the depth where the failure occurred to be displayed on the graphical user interface 226 adjacent to the shaded areas; pp[0026]).
Regarding claim 17, Walley teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising generating the output response by: generating a mapping of the drill string, the mapping of the drill string comprising a plurality of indicators, each corresponding to a drill string component of the plurality of drill string components (the indicators 324 correspond to each drill pipe/ component type which is mapped 232; Figs. 3, 4) ; displaying the mapping of the drill string (232 is displayed on 226; Figs. 3-5); and controlling at least one characteristic of each indicator based on the tracking of the corresponding drill string component relative to the corresponding one or more interest points along the borehole (an empty or blank cell indicates that the drill system failure associated with the column that intersects at that cell is not present at the depth associated with the row that intersects at that cell and the presence of a value, such as an "x," indicates that the corresponding fault has occurred at the corresponding depth; Figs. 3-5, pp[0022]).
Regarding claim 18, Walley teaches the system of claim 15, wherein displaying the mapping of the drill string further comprises displaying a mapping of the borehole (Figs. 3-5) with the one or more interest points (e.g. sinusoidal buckling ; Figs. 3-6,pp[0022], [0023]).
Regarding claim 19, Walley teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising generating the output response by providing an alert on a user interface of a current position of each drill string component relative to the one or more interest points (“the processor causes an alarm icon, such as a triangle with an overlaid exclamation point, and text indicating the type of failure and details of the depth where the failure occurred to be displayed on the graphical user interface 226 adjacent to the shaded areas. For example, in the embodiment shown in FIG. 4, the depth zones representing 4530-4830, 4830-5160, and 7200-16550 feet have been shaded. In addition, an alarm icon and the text "Sinusoidal Buckling 4530-4830 ft" is displayed adjacent to the 4530-4830 foot shaded area, an alarm icon and the text "Helical Buckling 4830-5160 ft" is displayed adjacent to the 4830-5160 foot shaded area, and an alarm icon and the text "Sinusoidal Buckling 7200-16550 ft" is displayed adjacent to the 7200-16550 foot shaded area...”;pp[0026])
Regarding claim 20, Walley teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising generating the output response by predicting a future status of each drill string component relative to the one or more interest points and providing an alert of the predicted future status of each drill string component relative to the one or more interest points on a user interface (The planning tool 236 will predict the type and location of a drill system failure (or failures) under those circumstances. In one embodiment, the planning tool 236 sets the flags in the failure flag field 218 or the other fields 220 corresponding to the identified fault (or faults) in the data record or data records 212a-n that correspond to the location of the identified fault (or faults). For example, if the planning tool 236 predicts that the drill string 110 will experience sinusoidal buckling at 4530 feet of measured depth; pp[0025]).
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whalley (U.S. Publication No. 20150193126) in view of Dursun et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20170191359).
Regarding claim 16, Whalley teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the plurality of instructions.
Walley is silent regarding cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising: adjusting a drilling operation as the output response based on an identified or predicted problem from the tracking of each drill string component relative to the corresponding one or more interest points along the borehole, and wherein adjusting a drilling operation comprises postponing a slide, performing a slide sooner than planned, extending a slide, changing RPM, changing WOB, or controlling mud flow.
Dursun, drawn to a target risk attribute predictor while drilling, discloses adjusting a drilling operation comprises postponing a slide, performing a slide sooner than planned, extending a slide, changing RPM, changing WOB, or controlling mud flow (The output of the target risk attribute predictor may be used to manually or automatically adjust a drilling direction and/or drilling operational parameters (e.g., torque, weight-on-bit, rotation rate) while drilling a borehole; pp[0019]).
Therefore, 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 system of Walley such that the adjusting the drilling operation comprising adjusting drilling operational parameters, as taught by Dursun, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent or mitigate risks during drilling (pp(0019])
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lamia Quaim whose telephone number is (469)295-9199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM - 6PM 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.
/LAMIA QUAIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights