DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/6/2026 has been entered. 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 Amendment
Applicant's amendments filed 1/6/2026 are sufficient to obviate the drawing objections and 112(b) rejections.
Regarding the prior art rejections, the independent claims have been amended to recite "at least one sensor configured to output measurements indicative of a distance between a location on the spider and a floor of a well rig, in which the distance is configured to change when at least a portion of a weight supported by the spider is transferred from the spider".
While Applicant asserts that Wiedecke does not disclose or suggest this on page 7 of the as-filed Remarks, there is no elaboration directly responsive to the rejection articulated in the Final Rejection mailed 10/17/2025. The interlock system taught by Wiedecke cleanly reads on these limitations, and in the same manner as previously presented, as discussed in the prior art rejections below. The examiner respectfully maintains the prior art rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, & 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0152530 (Wiedecke).
Independent claim 1. Wiedecke discloses a spider ("tubular handling tool 30, such as a spider" - fig 1A & ¶ 27; "tubular handling tool 80, which may be the same as either tubular handling tools 20, 30" - fig 3 & ¶ 33; "tubular handling tool 90, which may be the same as either tubular handling tools 20, 30" - fig 4 & ¶ 35; "tubular handling tool 130, such as the tubular handling tool 30 (e.g. a spider)" - ¶ 46) for use with a subterranean well (¶ 5), the spider comprising:
at least one sensor ("sensors 37, 38, 39" - fig 1A, ¶ 43; "sensors 88a, 88b" - fig 3 & ¶ 33; "sensor 98" and "sensors 99A and 99B" - fig 4 & ¶ 35. The individual / more specifically disclosed sensors of figs 3 & 4 are continuously monitored "to determine whether to open or close" in ¶s 33 & 35) configured to output measurements indicative of (The spider disclosed by Wiedecke is released by upward movement, and set by downward movement, as clearly indicated by figs 1A, 3, & 4, the shape of the bowl the slips move in, the movement created by the hydraulic actuation pistons, and as discussed extensively in prior actions, respectfully not repeated again here. See ¶ 27. In other words, fig 3 clearly conveys that pressurizing "second chamber 86" will cause the slip assembly to move upward to the disengaged position shown therein, and pressurizing "first chamber 85" will cause the slip assembly to move downward to the engaged position. This is also clearly conveyed by fig 1A with spider 30 being engaged and elevator 20 disengaged) a distance between a location on the spider (the pistons, the upper slip-moving ring, or the slips themselves, all move relative to the rig floor) and a floor of a well rig ("rig floor 163" - fig 6 & ¶ 48. The examiner notes that all measurements of the rising and lowering of the slips is "indicative of" their height relative to the rig floor. As currently worded, the slips holding the weight of the tubular - ¶ 32 - is "indicative of the distance" between the slips and the floor, as weight indicates the slips are engaged, and therefore lowered: fig 1A & ¶ 32. Similarly, when the slips are released and not holding the weight, the sensors are "indicative" of the upward, released position of the slips and their actuation elements relative to the rig floor), in which the distance is configured to change (the distance between "a location on the spider" and the rig floor changes during opening and closing, as discussed above) when at least a portion of a weight supported by the spider is transferred from the spider (¶ 45: "The first tubular handling tool 20 may then be lowered until the measured load indicates that the weight of the first tubular is being supported by the second tubular handing tool 30 and/or is not being supported by the first tubular handling tool 20. The controller 40 may then actuate the first valve 45 to allow actuation of the first tubular handling tool 20 into an open position to release the first tubular." This actuation changes the "distance" between the slips / their actuation elements and the floor of the rig due to the slips moving upwardly away from the rig floor as previously discussed. See also ¶ 40 of Wiedecke: "In response to one or more of the electronic signals received from the various sensors [i.e. weight as cited above and below] … the controller 40 may thus function as an electronic interlock to prevent opening or closing of either of the tubular handling tools 20, 30 and thereby prevent inadvertent dropping or mishandling of tubulars… [T]he controller 40 may prevent opening… if it is receiving a signal that either of the tubular handling tools 20, 30 are… are supporting a load that corresponds to the weight of a tubular… and/or are otherwise gripping and supporting a tubular or tubular string, while the other tool is not supporting the same. In one embodiment, the controller 40 will only allow the first tubular handling tool 20 to open or release when the tubular or tubular string weight is supported by the second tubular handling tool 30. In one embodiment, the controller 40 will only allow the second tubular handling tool 30 to open or release when the tubular or tubular string weight is supported by the first tubular handling tool 20." In other words, the "interlock" system of Wiedecke only allows "the distance to change when at least a portion of a weight supported by the spider is transferred from the spider" to the other spider of the pair. This interlock weight-transfer relationship is true for either of the two spiders used); and
a control system ("electronic control system 10" with "controller 40, such as a programmable logic controller" - ¶ 28; "controller 142" - ¶ 48) configured to control actuation of slips of the spider between open and closed positions in response to the measurements (¶ 28: "The controller 40 is configured to prevent or allow opening and closing of the tubular handling tools 20, 30 depending on their operational status as measured by the sensors." ¶ 31: "To determine whether to open or close, or prevent opening or closing, of either of the tubular handling tools 20, 30, the controller 40 receives one or more electronic signals from the sensors 27, 28, 29 and 37, 38, 39, corresponding to the operational status of the tubular handling tools 20, 30;" abstract; ¶s 28, 31, 41-43; This is discussed and cited in more detail in the Response above, respectfully not repeated again here).
2. The spider of claim 1, in which the sensor comprises at least one of the group consisting of a proximity sensor ("the sensors 29, 39 may measure position, displacement, and/or proximity" - ¶ 34), a laser ranging device ("sensors 29, 39 may include one or more linear transducers, such as… laser" - ¶ 34), a proximity switch ("the sensors 29, 39 may measure position, displacement, and/or proximity" - ¶ 34), a Hall effect device and a linear displacement transducer (ibid).
3. The spider of claim 2, in which the sensor is mounted at the location on the spider ("stroke/displacement/proximity sensor 98" moves with the movement of the spider - fig 4).
5. The spider of claim 1, in which the control system is further configured to control application of pressure ("the controller 40 may send an electronic signal to the fluid pressure source 60 to control operation of the supply and return of pressurized fluid to the tubular handling tools 20, 30" - ¶ 29; fig 1B & ¶ 44) to an actuator ("piston/cylinder assembly 31" - fig 1A; "piston/cylinder assemblies 81" - fig 3 & ¶ 33) configured to displace the slips between the open and closed positions ("Pressurization of the piston/cylinder assemblies 21, 31 moves the gripping assembly 22, 32 radially inwardly and outwardly to engage and disengage the tubulars 15a, 15b" - ¶ 27).
6. The spider of claim 5, in which the control system ("electronic control system 10" with "controller 40, such as a programmable logic controller" - ¶ 28; "controller 142" - ¶ 48) is further configured to prevent the actuator from displacing the slips to the open position ("the controller 40 may be configured to prevent or allow actuation of the tubular handling tools 20, 30 when it receives a signal that corresponds to a measurement within a pre-determined operational range" - ¶ 42) if the measurements are less than a predetermined distance level (The slips are closed when they are lowered / when the distance between the slips and rig floor is less than the distance when the slips are open: fig 4 and as discussed for claim 1 above. ¶ 42 teaches "the controller 40 may be configured to prevent or allow actuation of the tubular handling tools 20, 30 when it receives a signal that corresponds to a measurement within a pre-determined operational range". This meets the "less than a predetermined distance level" limitation because a measurement "less than a predetermined distance level" is outside "a pre-determined operational range" for the measurement. In other words, a "pre-determined operational range" implies measurements above and below the range, and the controller is "configured to prevent… actuation" when such a measurement is received - ¶ 42. This "configured to prevent actuation" is tied to all the various types of measurements taught: ¶ 42).
7. The spider of claim 6, in which the control system ("electronic control system 10" with "controller 40, such as a programmable logic controller" - ¶ 28; "controller 142" - ¶ 48) is further configured to permit the actuator to displace the slips to the open position ("the controller 40 may be configured to… allow actuation of the tubular handling tools 20, 30 when it receives a signal that corresponds to a measurement within a pre-determined operational range" - ¶ 42) if the measurements are greater than the predetermined distance level (¶ 42 teaches "the controller 40 may be configured to prevent or allow actuation of the tubular handling tools 20, 30 when it receives a signal that corresponds to a measurement within a pre-determined operational range". This meets the "if the measurements are greater than the distance level" limitation when the measurement is above the lower end of the "operational range" - i.e. "greater than the predetermined distance" - as claimed. In other words, the controller prevents opening when it is below the lower range threshold, as in claim 6, and allows opening when it is above the lower range threshold; ¶ 42).
8. The spider of claim 1, in which the control system ("electronic control system 10" with "controller 40, such as a programmable logic controller" - ¶ 28; "controller 142" - ¶ 48) is further configured to permit displacement of the slips to the open position in response to an increase in the measurements ("the controller 40 may be configured to… allow actuation of the tubular handling tools 20, 30 when it receives a signal that corresponds to a measurement within a pre-determined operational range" - ¶ 42. This meets the claim limitation because a measurement that is below the "pre-determined operational range" received by the controller may "prevent actuation" and the measurement rising into the "pre-determined operational range" may "allow actuation" - ¶ 42. The controller is "configured to" do this per ¶ 42).
Independent claim 9. Wiedecke discloses a method for use with a subterranean well (¶ 5), the method comprising:
measuring a distance (distance is indirectly measured by "sensors 37, 38, 39" - fig 1A, ¶ 43; "sensors 88a, 88b" - fig 3 & ¶ 33; "sensor 98" and "sensors 99A and 99B" - fig 4 & ¶ 35 - as these sensors measure the vertical position of the slips, as discussed in claim 1 above, respectfully not repeated again here. The claim does not require direct or a specific type of measurement) between a location on a spider (the lower fixed spider 30 that is secured to the rig floor: figs 1 & 2. "A location" on this spider can move relative to the rig floor: the pistons, the upper slip-moving ring, or the slips themselves) and a floor ("rig floor 163" - fig 6 & ¶ 48) of a well rig ("rig floor" - ibid), in which the distance changes when at least a portion of a weight supported by the spider is transferred from the spider (¶ 45: "The controller 40 may also prevent actuation of the second tubular handling tool 30 because the controller 40 is receiving signals corresponding to the weight of the first tubular being supported by the tool 30. The controller 40 may also prevent actuation of the second tubular handling tool 30 because the controller 40 is receiving signals corresponding to the weight of the first tubular being supported by the tool 30… After the tubulars are joined to form a tubular string, the first tubular handling tool 20 may be raised to lift the tubular string. When the measured weight of the tubular string is signaled to the controller 40 as being supported by the first tubular handling tool 20 [i.e. the weight has been transferred from 30 to 20] … the controller 40 may then actuate the second valve 47 to allow actuation of the second tubular handling tool [30; Wiedecke uses "second tubular handling tool 20" which is a typo of 30, as shown by both "second tubular handling tool 30" used elsewhere in ¶ 45 and "second valve 47" being for actuating "second tubular handling tool 30" in fig 1A & ¶ 30]. In other words, the lower fixed spider is locked in the closed position when it supports weight and is only allowed to open - i.e. "the distance changes" - when weight as been transferred to the first tubular handling tool 20); and
controlling actuation of slips of the spider between open and closed positions in response to the measuring (abstract; ¶s 28, 31, 41-43).
10. The method of claim 9, in which the measuring comprises mounting a sensor on the spider ("sensors 37, 38, 39" - fig 1A, ¶ 43; "sensors 88a, 88b" - fig 3 & ¶ 33; "sensor 98" and "sensors 99A and 99B" - fig 4 & ¶ 35), the sensor comprising at least one of the group consisting of a proximity sensor ("the sensors 29, 39 may measure position, displacement, and/or proximity" - ¶ 34), a laser ranging device ("sensors 29, 39 may include one or more linear transducers, such as… laser" - ¶ 34), a proximity switch ("the sensors 29, 39 may measure position, displacement, and/or proximity" - ¶ 34), a Hall effect device and a linear displacement transducer (ibid).
13. The method of claim 9, in which the controlling actuation comprises controlling application of pressure to an actuator ("Pressurization of the piston/cylinder assemblies 21, 31 moves the gripping assembly 22, 32 radially inwardly and outwardly to engage and disengage the tubulars 15a, 15b" - ¶ 27) that displaces the slips between the open and closed positions ("the controller 40 may send an electronic signal to the fluid pressure source 60 to control operation of the supply and return of pressurized fluid to the tubular handling tools 20, 30" - ¶ 29; fig 1B & ¶ 44).
14. The method of claim 9, in which the controlling actuation comprises permitting the slips to displace to the open position when the distance is greater than a predetermined distance level (as similarly described for claim 7 above, respectfully not repeated again here).
15. The method of claim 14, in which the controlling actuation further comprises preventing the slips from displacing to the open position when the distance is less than the predetermined distance level (as similarly described for claim 6 above, respectfully not repeated again here).
Independent claim 16. Wiedecke discloses system for use with a subterranean well, the system comprising:
a spider ("tubular handling tool 30, such as a spider" - fig 1A & ¶ 27; "tubular handling tool 80, which may be the same as either tubular handling tools 20, 30" - fig 3 & ¶ 33; "tubular handling tool 90, which may be the same as either tubular handling tools 20, 30" - fig 4 & ¶ 35; "tubular handling tool 130, such as the tubular handling tool 30 (e.g. a spider)" - ¶ 46) configured to grip a tubular positioned in the spider (fig 3); and
PNG
media_image1.png
544
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one sensor ("sensors 37, 38, 39" - fig 1A, ¶ 43; "sensors 88a, 88b" - fig 3 & ¶ 33; "sensor 98" and "sensors 99A and 99B" - fig 4 & ¶ 35) configured to sense a rise of a location on the spider (The pistons, the upper slip-moving ring, or the slips themselves. An upper housing that moves vertically with the slips is clearly shown but not individually numbered in figs 3 & 4, as indicated by the annotated version of fig 3 here. The examiner notes that the spider disclosed by Wiedecke is released by upward movement, and set by downward movement, as clearly indicated by figs 1A, 3, & 4, the shape of the bowl the slips move in, and the movement created by the hydraulic actuation pistons. See ¶ 27. In other words, fig 3 clearly conveys that pressurizing "second chamber 86" will cause the slip assembly to move upward to the disengaged position shown therein, and pressurizing "first chamber 85" will cause the slip assembly to move downward to the engaged position. This is also clearly conveyed by fig 1A with spider 30 being engaged and elevator 20 disengaged) relative to a floor of a well rig ("rig floor 163" - fig 6 & ¶ 48) caused by transfer of at least a portion of a weight of the tubular from the spider (¶ 45: "The first tubular handling tool 20 may then be lowered until the measured load indicates that the weight of the first tubular is being supported by the second tubular handing tool 30 and/or is not being supported by the first tubular handling tool 20. The controller 40 may then actuate the first valve 45 to allow actuation of the first tubular handling tool 20 into an open position to release the first tubular" i.e. the distance between the rig floor and the slips is increased upon opening and this is in direct response to the weight being transferred. This actuation changes the "distance" between the slips / their actuation elements and the floor of the rig due to the slips moving upwardly away from the rig floor as previously discussed. See also ¶ 40 of Wiedecke: "In response to one or more of the electronic signals received from the various sensors [i.e. weight as cited above and below] … the controller 40 may thus function as an electronic interlock to prevent opening or closing of either of the tubular handling tools 20, 30 and thereby prevent inadvertent dropping or mishandling of tubulars… [T]he controller 40 may prevent opening… if it is receiving a signal that either of the tubular handling tools 20, 30 are… are supporting a load that corresponds to the weight of a tubular… and/or are otherwise gripping and supporting a tubular or tubular string, while the other tool is not supporting the same. In one embodiment, the controller 40 will only allow the first tubular handling tool 20 to open or release when the tubular or tubular string weight is supported by the second tubular handling tool 30. In one embodiment, the controller 40 will only allow the second tubular handling tool 30 to open or release when the tubular or tubular string weight is supported by the first tubular handling tool 20." In other words, the "interlock" system of Wiedecke only allows "the distance to change when at least a portion of a weight supported by the spider is transferred from the spider" to the other spider of the pair. This interlock weight-transfer relationship is true for either of the two spiders used).
17. The system of claim 16, in which the spider further comprises an actuator ("Pressurization of the piston/cylinder assemblies 21, 31 moves the gripping assembly 22, 32 radially inwardly and outwardly to engage and disengage the tubulars 15a, 15b" - ¶ 27) configured to displace slips of the spider ("gripping assembly 22, 32" - ¶ 27; 82, fig 3; 92, fig 4) between open and closed positions (¶ 27 as cited above).
18. The system of claim 17, in which actuation of the slips to the open position is prevented if a distance between the location of the spider and the rig floor is less than a predetermined distance level (as similarly described for claim 6 above, respectfully not repeated again here. The examiner notes that neither claim 18 or independent claim 16 positively requires directly measuring the distance, but rather is broadened to "sense a rise", which is met by Wiedecke as discussed above).
19. The system of claim 18, in which the actuation of the slips to the open position is permitted if the distance between the location on the spider and the rig floor is greater than a predetermined distance level (as similarly described for claim 7 above, respectfully not repeated again here).
20. The system of claim 16, in which the at least one sensor is selected from the group consisting of a proximity sensor ("the sensors 29, 39 may measure position, displacement, and/or proximity" - ¶ 34), a laser ranging device ("sensors 29, 39 may include one or more linear transducers, such as… laser" - ¶ 34), a proximity switch ("the sensors 29, 39 may measure position, displacement, and/or proximity" - ¶ 34), a Hall effect device, a linear displacement transducer (ibid), and a camera.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 11, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0152530 (Wiedecke) in view of US 2016/0369619 (Parmeshwar).
Claim 4. Wiedecke discloses all the limitations of the parent claims, and further discloses that the slip measurement sensors "may include one or more linear transducers, such as potentiometric, ultrasonic, magnetic, inductive, laser, optical, and/or (absolute/incremental) encoder-type sensors. Other similar sensing devices, such as proximity sensors, may be used to measure the stroke, position, displacement, and/or proximity of the piston/cylinder assemblies and/or the gripping assemblies to indicate whether the handling tools 20, 30, 80 are in the open or closed position" (¶ 34). The examiner notes "laser" and "optical" among the other types of sensors taught above. While an "optical" sensor could possible reasonably be called a "camera", Wiedecke does not explicitly disclose a camera.
However Parmeshwar discloses the use of sensors to measure elevation of rig elements (abstract, ¶ 50) for the purposes of slip / tubular gripping control (¶ 49) using a camera (¶ 57) and further discloses that a camera is a known and obvious variation of "ultrasonic, lasers, camera, radar, or any other suitable method for determining a straight line distance between two points" (¶ 57 of Parmeshwar). As mentioned above, Wiedecke teaches measuring slip height using sensors that sensors "may include one or more linear transducers, such as potentiometric, ultrasonic, magnetic, inductive, laser, optical, and/or (absolute/incremental) encoder-type sensors. Other similar sensing devices, such as proximity sensors, may be used to measure the stroke, position, displacement, and/or proximity of the piston/cylinder assemblies and/or the gripping assemblies to indicate whether the handling tools 20, 30, 80 are in the open or closed position" (¶ 34 of Wiedecke). In other words, Parmeshwar teaches that it is known to use of cameras are a known art suitable substitute for "laser" and "ultrasonic" measurements (both also taught by Wiedecke) for "determining a straight line distance between two points" of rig equipment.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a camera as taught by Parmeshwar to measure the distance between the slips being raised and lowered and the rig floor as taught by Wiedecke. Parmeshwar teaches a camera as a known, and art recognized suitable alternative to ultrasonic or laser measurements (cited above).
The examiner notes that Parmeshwar is not being asserted as measuring slip height, but that this is moot for the purposes of the rejection. Wiedecke already teaches the slip height measurement (as cited above), and it is not necessary that the secondary modifying reference fully duplicate the primary reference's teachings. If this were the standard, no 103 rejections would ever be made because the secondary reference would already anticipate the claim. This standard of obviousness was reinforced and broadened by the holdings of KSR, discussed below. Second, Parmeshwar teaches the claimed sensor as an obvious variation of the sensors of Wiedecke to measure linear distance from the rig floor of vertical movement elements (abstract, fig 3B, ¶ 57). It is not necessary that Parmeshwar teaches all the limitations of the claim already before it can be used to modify Wiedecke.
Citing the holdings of KSR, "[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396" - MPEP 2141, subsection I.
Implementing a camera measurement (currently claimed at the highest level of generality possible) is certainly within the skill of the artisan, and how to do so is expressly taught by Parmeshwar. And there is clear overlap in the function and structure of both references, with suggestion for the modification, as cited above. Therefore "§ 103 likely bars its patentability" per KSR.
Claim 11. Wiedecke discloses all the limitations of the parent claims, and further discloses that the slip measurement sensors "may include one or more linear transducers, such as potentiometric, ultrasonic, magnetic, inductive, laser, optical, and/or (absolute/incremental) encoder-type sensors. Other similar sensing devices, such as proximity sensors, may be used to measure the stroke, position, displacement, and/or proximity of the piston/cylinder assemblies and/or the gripping assemblies to indicate whether the handling tools 20, 30, 80 are in the open or closed position" (¶ 34). The examiner notes "laser" and "optical" among the other types of sensors taught above. While an "optical" sensor could possible reasonably be called a "camera", Wiedecke does not explicitly disclose "a camera" positioned "so that the rig floor and the location on the spider are visible to the camera".
However Parmeshwar discloses the use of a camera ("sensor 314" may be a "camera" - ¶ 57 - and is pointed towards "rig floor 312" - fig 3B - with " slips 902, which may be positioned at or near the rig floor 312" - fig 9 & ¶ 87) to measure elevation of vertically moving rig elements (abstract, fig 3B, ¶ 57) relative to the rig floor ("rig floor 312") for "determining a straight line distance between two points" of rig equipment (¶ 57).
Therefore, as similarly discussed for claim 4 above, and not fully repeated again here, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a camera as taught by Parmeshwar to measure the distance between the slips being raised and lowered and the rig floor as taught by Wiedecke. Parmeshwar teaches a camera as a known, and art recognized suitable alternative to ultrasonic or laser measurements (cited above).
12. The method of claim 11, in which the measuring further comprises securing a visual token (abstract; "markers 320(1), 320(2) - ¶s 52, 53, 57-65 of Parmeshwar) at the location on the spider (the markers may be located at any number of different heights, locations, and angles, for identifying the distances between the markers - ¶s 54, 56, 59, & 65 - including on a movable point "A" - ¶ 54).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Blake Michener whose telephone number is (571)270-5736. The examiner can normally be reached Approximately 9:00am to 6:00pm CT.
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.
/BLAKE MICHENER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676