Detailed Action
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The metes and bounds of claim 1 are ambiguous as it is unclear with the negative limitation what the construction of the down hole tool fully encompasses or does not encompass. Specifically the claim language regarding the ranging magnets “integrated into a body of a rotary steerable tool without using a bit sub” is unclear what the intended meaning of without using a bit sub encompasses. It is unclear if the rotary steerable tool does not have a bit sub at all, if the magnets can not be integrated using a bit sub, or if the magnets can not be integrated into a bit sub but another body of the rotary steerable tool would be acceptable and a bit sub could still be utilized. Therefore, as the limitation of claim 1 is unclear in what the intended meaning of the limitation “integrated into a body of a rotary steerable tool without using a bit sub” Claim 1 is ambiguous.
Claim 1 is rejected on this basis
Claims 2-14 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Examiners note: With the amendment to claim 1 the claim language of claim 5-6 may become ambiguous as one or more ranging magnets language can become contradictory with the negative limitation. Examiner suggests utilizing language from Claim 15 “two or more ranging magnets” to avoid possible 35 USC 112 issues with dependent claims becoming contradictory to the negative limitation in claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12241363. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 in the parent (US Pat No 12241363) fully encompass claim 15 in App 18/807,707.
An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g. In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 is generic to all that is recited in claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12241363. In other words, claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12241363 fully encompasses the subject matter of claim 12 and therefore anticipates claim 12. Specifically, because “one or more of the ranging magnets are located between a drill bit box and push pads of a drive system” is a species of the generic category defined by “two or more ranging magnets are located above and below a drive system of the tubular string”, claim 15 reciting “above and below a drive system of a tubular string” is anticipated by claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12241363 reciting “one or more of the ranging magnets are located between a drill bit box and push pads of a drive system”.
Furthermore, because at least one frequency of the one or more magnetic fields is based on rotation of the tubular string in combination with rotation of the drive system is a species of the generic category defined by “the first and second rotation settings are based on rotation of the tubular string in combination with rotation of the drive system”, claim 15 reciting “the first and second rotation settings are based on rotation of the tubular string in combination with rotation of the drive system” is anticipated by claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12241363 reciting “at least one frequency of the one or more magnetic fields is based on rotation of the tubular string in combination with rotation of the drive system”. Since claim 15 is anticipated by claim 12 of the patent, claim 15 is not patentably distinct from claim 12, regardless of any additional subject matter present in claim 15.
Claim 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12241363. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 in the parent (US Pat No 12241363) fully encompass claim 20 in App 18/807,707.
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.
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(s) 1, 5, 8, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US Pat No 20080041626)
Clark in regards to claim 1. A downhole ranging tool, comprising: a tubular string (Clark Fig 7, 104) having a bottomhole assembly (“BHA”) comprising a drive system (Clark Fig 7, 722) and a drill bit (Clark Fig 7, 721); and one or more ranging magnets (Clark Fig 7, 725) positioned along the tubular string, wherein at least one of the one or more ranging magnets is Integrated into a body of a rotary steerable tool (Clark Fig 7; 725 is positioned on an independent sub/member of the drill string [0048] BHA, 720, contains a rotary steerable system, 722, and one or more magnets are positioned on a near bit-sub 725 and drill bit, 721, and rotary steered as a tool downhole)
and positioned above the drill bit (Clark Fig 7; 725 is positioned adjacently above the drill bit 721).
Clark teaches various embodiments which both include permanent magnets in a near bit sub and without magnets in a near bit sub (without using a bit sub) as shown in Fig 5 (515) and Fig 8 (815) showing various drill string embodiments with the magnetic field being generated not on a bit sub. Clark discloses that the embodiment in Fig 5 uses a solenoid but could be substituted with a permanent magnet (Clark [0032] [0084])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embodiment in Fig 7 of Clark to have the magnet positioned as shown in the embodiment of Fig 5 of Clark for the purpose of the magnetic field providing direction and inclination data along a wellbore path.
Clark in regards to claim 5. The downhole ranging tool of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more ranging magnets is positioned in a drill bit box (Examiners note: Drill bit box is described in the drawings Fig 6, 606 as a near bit sub in [0031] of the instant specification and therefore, Clark Fig 7, teaches a near bit sub that contains magnets 725 and described in [0048]) of the drive system (Clark [0048] BHA, 720, contains a rotary steerable system, 722, and one or more magnets are positioned on a near bit-sub 725 and drill bit, 721, and rotary steered as a tool downhole).
Clark in regards to claim 8. The downhole ranging tool of claim 1, wherein the drive system is a push-the-bit rotary steerable system (“RSS”) (Clark [0048] utilizes a push the bit rotary steerable system).
Clark in regards to claim 10. The downhole ranging tool of claim 1, wherein the drive system is a downhole motor assembly (Clark [0048] utilizes a downhole steerable motor assembly).
Clark in regards to claim 11. The downhole ranging tool of claim 10, wherein the magnets are positioned on a bit box (Clark [0048] BHA, 720, contains a rotary steerable system, 722, and one or more magnets are positioned on a near bit-sub 725 and drill bit, 721, and rotary steered as a tool downhole).
Claim(s) 2, 6, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US Pat No 20080041626) in view of Kennedy (US Pub No 20060028321).
Clark in regards to claim 2. The downhole ranging tool of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more ranging magnets is positioned on a sub of a drill string (Clark Fig 7, 725 is positioned on a near bit sub). Clark discloses different locations for positioning a ranging magnet (Clark see [0032], [0048], [0061]and fig 5, 7, 8, 9 disclosing differing locations for magnet placement) but is silent as to positioning on specific downhole tools.
However, Kennedy discloses a ranging magnet that: is positioned on a stabilizer sleeve (Kennedy Fig 1 stabilizer, 30, with ranging magnets, 46) of the drive system (Kennedy Fig 1 [0072] stabilizers are included with rotary steerable drilling assembly to stabilize the drill string [0030]).
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 drill string and magnet of location of Clark to include the stabilizer containing magnets of Kennedy to stabilize the drill string since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would result in the predictable result of stabilizing the drill string while housing a permanent magnetic field source.
Clark in regards to claim 6. The downhole ranging tool of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more ranging magnets is positioned on a collar (Clark Fig 7, near bit-sub 725) of the drive system (Clark [0048] BHA, 720, contains a rotary steerable system, 722, and one or more magnets are positioned on a near bit-sub 725 and drill bit, 721, and rotary steered as a tool downhole). Clark describes a near bit sub containing the ranging magnet system, but is silent if it is a flex collar.
However, Kennedy discloses a: flex collar (Kennedy [0031])
As both Clark and Kennedy both disclose a collar, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the generic magnetic field collar of Clark for the magnetic flex collar of Kennedy to achieve with a reasonable expectation of success the predictable result of a flexible joint for steering the drill bit [0031]).
Clark in regards to claim 12. The downhole ranging tool of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more magnets is embedded in a sub (Clark Fig 7, 725 is positioned on a near bit sub) Clark is silent as to the structure of the embedment of the magnets.
However, Kennedy teaches embedding magnets: pocket of a side wall of the tubular string (Kennedy Fig 3 Magnets 46 are embedded in a side wall of a downhole tool [0084]), the pocket being offset from a center line of the tubular string (Kennedy Fig 3 Magnets 46 are embedded in a side wall of a downhole tool [0084] offset from the center line of the tubular string).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Clark to include magnet sockets as taught by Kennedy for the purpose of embedding magnets in a downhole sub.
Clark in regards to claim 13. The downhole ranging tool of claim 12, wherein the pocket is oriented laterally with respect to an axis of the tubular string (Kennedy Fig 3 Pockets are laterally orientated to the axis of the tubular string).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US Pat No 20080041626) in view of Hutton (US Pub No 20130075164) and in further view of Kennedy (US Pub No 20060028321)
Clark in regards to claim 3. The downhole ranging tool of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more ranging magnets is positioned in a sub of a drill string (Clark Fig 7, 725 is positioned on a near bit sub). Clark is silent as to the use of a pad assembly in the rotary drive system, such as in “push the bit” system.
However, Kirkhope discloses: a pad assembly (Fig 18. 730 [0111] simplified push the bit assembly/stabilizer) of the drive system.
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 drill string of Clark to include the push-the-bit/stabilizer of Kirkhope to direct steering of the bit since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would result in the predictable result of steering the drill bit.
Clark in view of Kirkhope discloses embedding pressure sensors (Kirkhope [0112]), but is silent as to embedding magnets in the push-the-bit/stabilizer.
However, Kennedy discloses a ranging magnet that: is positioned on a stabilizer sleeve (Kennedy Fig 1 stabilizer, 30, with ranging magnets, 46) of the drive system (Kennedy Fig 1 [0072] stabilizers are included with rotary steerable drilling assembly to stabilize the drill string [0030]).
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 Magnet location and push-the-bit/stabilizer of Clark in view of Kirkhope to include the magnets located in the stabilizer of Kennedy to generate a detectable magnetic field since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would result in the predictable result of generating a magnetic field for detection.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US Pat No 20080041626) in view of Hutton (US Pub No 20130075164)
7. The downhole ranging tool of claim 1, wherein the one or more ranging magnets comprises two or more ranging magnets (Clark [0048] Fig 7, collar, 125, contains permanent magnets (plural)), and wherein at least one of the one or more ranging magnets is positioned in a collar (Clark [0048] Fig 7, collar, 125, contains permanent magnets (plural)). Clark describes a near bit sub containing the ranging magnet system, but is silent if it is a flex collar.
However, Hutton teaches a point the bit rotary steerable system configuration of a: flex collar (Hutton Fig 2; 242 cross section provided in Fig 3b containing deflection device 440 described in detail in Fig 4a, 4b [0052] & [0055]) positioned above a stabilizer sleeve (Hutton Fig 2, 224) of the drive system. In order to apply a force to be able to point the drill bit during drilling (Hutton [0055])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Clark to include a Flex collar above the stabilizer as taught by Hutton for the purpose of applying a force to be able to point the drill bit during drilling (Hutton [0055])
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US Pat No 20080041626) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kirkhope (US Pub No 2017031433).
Clark discloses in claim 4. The downhole ranging tool of claim 1, however, in the embodiment of claim 1 the magnets are positioned below the RSS. However, Clark Further teaches another embodiment that wherein at least one of the one or more ranging magnets is positioned above sub of a drill string . (Clark Fig 5, magnets are positioned in 515, above the RSS 512).
As Clark both discloses both configurations of the drill string and the positioning of the magnets, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the embodiment of Fig 7 for the embodiment of Fig 5 of Clark as Clark discloses they are equivalent and to achieve the predictable result of utilizing magnetic range finding of a wellbore.
However, Clark is silent as to the use of a pad assembly in the rotary drive system, such as in “push the bit” system.
However, Kirkhope discloses: a pad assembly (Fig 18. 730 [0111] simplified push the bit assembly/stabilizer) of the drive system.
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 drill string of Clark to include the push-the-bit/stabilizer of Kirkhope to direct steering of the bit since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would result in the predictable result of steering the drill bit.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US Pat No 20080041626).
Clark discloses in claim 9. The downhole ranging tool of claim 8, however, in the embodiment of claim 8 the magnets are positioned below the RSS. However, Clark further teaches another embodiment wherein at least one of the one or more magnets is positioned in a collar above the RSS (Clark Fig 5, magnets are positioned in 515, above the RSS 512).
As Clark both discloses both configurations of the drill string and the positioning of the magnets, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the embodiment of Fig 7 for the embodiment of Fig 5 of Clark as Clark discloses they are equivalent and to achieve the predictable result of utilizing magnetic range finding of a wellbore.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under double patenting set forth in this Office action.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 14 is indicated as allowable as the best prior art for the claims as written Clark (US Pub No 20080041626), teaches all the prior limitations of independent claim 1 but June does not teach two or more magnets positioned above and below the drive system and the frequencies of the magnets being altered through rotational engagement and disengagement of the subs and modification of Clark to include the limitations of claim 14 would rely on hindsight reasoning to modify to meet the limitations of claim 14 as written. Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 if included with the limitations of claim 1 as written overcome would be considered allowable subject matter.
Independent Claim 15
Downhole ranging magnets and range finding are well known in the art of wellbore exploration and operations. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Clark (US Pub No 20080041626). This art, alone or in combination, discloses various structures related to downhole ranging magnets positioned on a drill bit to steer a drill bit downhole utilizing various recited features including but not limited to, such as ranging magnets positioned on a drill string to direct and steer the formation of a wellbore. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically combined structure and steps regarding the specific positional relationships and operations between each recited structure in operation such as, ranging magnets positioned a first location is rotated at a first rotation setting, thereby altering the first magnetic field; a second location is rotated at a second rotation setting, thereby altering the second magnetic field. It could be argued that the individual structure is generally known or easily conceived in the art and thus, could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural relationships and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures. Furthermore, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner could find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to the double patenting rejection of claims 1-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection of claims 1-14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 10, and 11 under 35 USC 102 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 in view of Clark (US Pat No 20080041626).
As shown in the above rejection Clark teaches multiple embodiments (Fig 5, 7, 8) for the positioning of the magnets along the drill string supported by Fig 5 having the magnets (Clark [0084] solenoid and magnet are interchangeable) not positioned on the bit sub.
In regards to the arguments presented about claim 5 starting on page 7 Examiner does not find the arguments persuasive as the drawings do not show magnets specifically positioned on a bit box, looking at Fig 6 element 606 of the instant specification shows the magnets positioned on a near bit sub supported by the instant specification paragraph [0031] describes the magnets being positioned around the bit box but not specifically embedded on the bit box of the drill bit. The instant specification specifies in [0026] (positioned between the bit box/drill bit and a pad assembly), [0028] (along a bit box of a flex collar) and a further example of the bit box being defined as element 210 in Fig 2 with magnet placed at 202g ([0028]) which is contrary to the definition argued on page 8 that the “This differs from a "drill bit box," which a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably construe as referring to the connector end of a drill bit assembly.”. Examiners position is the applicant has defined the drill bit box and bit box as any sub connector in the drill collar or bottom hole assembly. For this reason Examiner does not find the arguments regarding claim 5 persuasive.
Examiners note: With the amendment to claim 1 the claim language of claim 5-6 may become ambiguous as one or more ranging magnets language can become contradictory with the negative limitation. Examiner suggests utilizing language from Claim 15 “two or more ranging magnets” to avoid possible 35 USC 112 issues with dependent claims becoming contradictory to the negative limitation in claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 in regards to claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 12-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons that claim 1 was not persuasive above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas D Wlodarski whose telephone number is (571)272-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/NICHOLAS D WLODARSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672