DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner notes that the drawing objections which are repeated again in this office action were NOT addressed by Applicants response filed on 01/14/2026. The examiner notes that the Claim & Specification objections which are NOT REPEATED AGAIN in this office action were addressed by Applicants response filed on 01/14/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 27, 28. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “26” has been used to designate both an inner housing and an outer housing of the device illustrated in Fig 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because – to clearly illustrate the different flows of the well fluid 25 and the dielectric oil 10 in Fig 1 different arrows or flowpath lines should be used to indicate each respective fluid flow. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
“a through inter-tube channel of the heat exchanger for a flow of the well fluid”,
“a nozzle of an internal channel of the heat exchanger”.
The figures do not have an element number to identify: the through inter-tube channel, or a nozzle of an internal channel of the heat exchanger – as recited in claim 2.
“a pump drive shaft connected to a two-sided thrust bearing” (Claim 4).
The examiner thinks that element 27 in Fig 1 is the claimed thrust bearing, and that the part of the shaft connected to the inner rotor of element 4 is the claimed pump shaft.
These must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 2-3 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.
Regarding Claim 2: Line 1-6 states: “further comprising: a through inter-tube channel of the heat exchanger for a flow of the well fluid;
a spiral radiator created in the through inter-tube channel, tightly connected to a nozzle of an internal channel of the heat exchanger, wherein a winding provides an ascent of a thermal flow of the well fluid through the pump drive and increases a heat removal surface by more than 2 times of the submersible pump without the through inner-tube channel.”.
First, the limitation "the submersible pump without the through inner-tube channel" in Line 6, lacks antecedent basis.
Second, even if the limitation identified above, were properly introduced, the language “increases a heat removal surface by more than 2 times of a submersible pump without the through inner-tube channel” would make the claim indefinite since there is no way of determining the required amount of heat removal necessary. This is because the amount of heat removal in a submersible pump will depend upon the size and construction of the submersible pump. And since the PTO does not have laboratory facilities for determining the heat removal of different submersible pumps, there is no way to apprise a PHOSITA the required amount of increase to a heat removal surface given the language “increases a heat removal surface by more than 2 times of the submersible pump without the through inner-tube channel” as recited in claim 2.
Third, the language of the claim is confusing because it seems that the heat exchanger, the spiral radiator, and the winding recited in claim 2 are each directed to the same structure. Additionally, since the motor rotor, and the shaft driven by the motor – are understood to be the pump drive. It is unclear how the structure shown in the instant application is able to provide an ascent (i.e. upward movement) of a thermal flow of the well fluid through the pump drive – as recited in claim 2. However it is noted that the spiral structure indicated by element 19 in Fig 1 allows the well fluid to flow above the pump drive.
For the purpose of examination the limitations in question will be read as: -- further comprising: a through inter-tube channel of the heat exchanger for a flow of the well fluid; a spiral radiator having a winding flowpath created in the through inter-tube channel, tightly connected to a nozzle of an internal channel of the heat exchanger, wherein [[a]] the winding flowpath [[provides]] allows an ascent of a thermal flow of the well fluid [[through]] above the pump drive and increases a heat removal surface by more than 2 times of [[the]] a submersible pump without the through inner-tube channel.--.
Regarding Claim 3: Line 2-4 states: “a forced heat exchange pump made on a rotor on a shaft of the oil-filled electric motor to intensify a circulation of a filling liquid”. It is unclear the exact limitations the applicant is introducing here, specifically the language a forced heat exchange pump made on a rotor on a shaft of the oil-filled electric motor – suggests that the pump is located on a rotor that is located between a shaft of the motor and the claimed pump, however this is not what is shown in Fig 1. Additionally, the language a filling liquid is not consistent with the other language of the claim which requires the motor to be filled with oil. Accordingly because of these issues the language of the claim is unclear. However, since element 4 in Fig 1 is the pump, and from Fig 1 it appears that a rotor of the pump 4 is connected to the shaft of the motor, for the purpose of examination the language in question will be read as: -- a forced heat exchange pump [[made on ]] having a pump rotor on a shaft of the oil filled electric motor to intensify a circulation of [[a filling liquid]] the oil.--.
Finally; depending claim(s) inherit deficiencies from the parent claim(s). Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moehrl USPN 2556435 in view of Witten USPN 4436488.
Regarding Claim 1: Moehrl USPN 2556435 discloses the limitations: A submersible pump drive (the submersible pump drive is defined by the sum of its parts) comprising:
a pump drive (the pump drive corresponds to the pump driving structure (e.g. the motor 16 and shaft 14) inside elements 24a,16,18, in Fig 2);
a casing (the casing = housing elements 24,17,30,32,17a,17b,37,18 in Fig 1) surrounding the pump drive (as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2 the structure of the casing surrounds the articulated pump driving elements);
a heat exchanger (44,50,52,54,38,42,40,38a, Fig 1, Column 3 Line 14-26, Column 2 Line 52-Column 3 Line 13) inside the casing (as seen in Fig 1);
an oil-filled electric motor (16;72,74, Column 1 Line 1-21, Column 3 Line 14-66) inside the casing (as understood from Figs 1-2);
the heat exchanger connected to the casing (as seen in Fig 1 tube fittings connect elements 44 & 50 of the heat exchanger to elements 37 and 32 of the casing) and connected to the oil-filled electric motor (as seen in Fig 1 the structure of the casing connects the articulated heat exchanger to the stator 72 of the oil-filled electric motor);
a compensator (compensator = 38,40,42,38a; the identified compensator provides a seal that keeps the well fluid flowing through element 18 out of the motor) installed in the heat exchanger (since the compensator (38,40,42,38a) is part of the articulated heat exchanger it is installed in the heat exchanger as claimed);
an oil-filled cavity (= motor chamber in element 17 of Fig 1 where the motor is located, Column 3 Line 44-66) in the oil-filled electric motor (as understood in Figs 1-2);
an oil channel (= oil channel 32B in Fig 1) hydraulically connecting the oil-filled cavity of the oil-filled electric motor (as understood from Fig 1);
channels in the pump drive (= channel 64 in shaft 14 and the annular channel between stator 72 and rotor 74 of the motor which the oil flows though as understood from Fig 1) that provide oil circulation in the pump drive (as understood from Fig 1) for heat exchange between the oil-filled electric motor and a well fluid (i.e. heat exchange between the oil circulated through the oil-filled electric motor & the heat exchanger with the water/well fluid flowing through strainer 18, across the walls of the tubing of the heat exchanger, Figs 1-2, Column 3 Line 54-66; well fluid = water drawn through strainer 18 into the pump); and
a bottom of the casing (bottom of the casing = portion identified with 24a in Fig 1 and Fig 2) located outside a main zone of the heat exchanger (main zone of the heat exchanger = space within the coils of the heat exchanger inside strainer 18 in Fig 1; as seen in Figs 1-2 the bottom of the casing is located outside the articulated main zone of the heat exchanger) and located beyond the heat exchanger (as understood from Fig 1 and Fig 2 the bottom of the casing is located below (i.e. axially beyond) the articulated heat exchanger). Moehrl USPN 2556435 is silent regarding the limitations: a diaphragm compensator. The prior art of Witten USPN 4436488 which is directed to an electric submersible pump (title, abstract) like Moehrl USPN 2556435, is noted.
However, Witten USPN 4436488 does disclose the limitations: a pump drive (the pump drive corresponds to the pump driving structure (e.g. the motor 18 and shaft 15 in Figs 1-2) located inside the housing of the pump, Column 2 Line 18-42); a casing (i.e. housing of the pump which defines the motor chamber 13 and pressure compensator chamber 25) surrounding the pump drive (as understood from Figs 1-2); and a diaphragm compensator (= bellows 33, mouth 39, port 41, and partition 23, Fig 2, Column 2 Line 39-Column 3 Line 23) located at a bottom of the casing (as understood from Fig 2).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the diaphragm compensator (33,39,41,23, Fig 2 of Witten) into the bottom 24a of the casing of Moehrl USPN 2556435, in light of the teachings of Witten USPN 4436488, in order to provide pressure compensation of the electric submersible pump during installation, thereby avoiding negative pressure at the top of the tool during installation (Witten – Abstract).
Regarding Claim 2: Moehrl USPN 2556435 as modified by Witten USPN 4436488 discloses the limitations: a through inter-tube channel of the heat exchanger (Moehrl - through inter tube channel of the heat exchanger = channel inside strainer 20 that the heat exchanger extends through in Fig 1) for a flow of the well fluid (Moehrl - for the well fluid that flows through the openings of the strainer and upwards in Fig 1); a spiral radiator (Moehrl - spiral coil of tubing in Fig 1) having a winding flowpath (Moehrl - winding flowpath through the spiral coil of tubing in Fig 1) created in the through inter-tube channel (Moehrl - as seen in Fig 1), tightly connected to a nozzle (Moehrl - tube fitting connected to the inlet of the spiral coil of tubing) of an internal channel of the heat exchanger (Moehrl - internal channel of the heat exchanger = tubing that forms the heat exchanger), wherein the winding flowpath allows an ascent of a thermal flow of the well fluid above the pump drive (Moehrl - as seen in Fig 1) and increases a heat removal surface by more than 2 times of a submersible pump without the through inner-tube channel (it is understood that the prior art of Moehrl as modified by Witten addresses the language of the claim within the same confines as the instant application).
Regarding Claim 3: Moehrl USPN 2556435 as modified by Witten USPN 4436488 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 1. Additionally, Moehrl USPN 2556435 discloses: a forced heat exchange pump (pump impeller 36 and volute defined by head portion 32 in Fig 1, Column 2 Line 36-51) having a pump rotor (i.e. having impeller 36) on a shaft of the oil-filled electric motor (on shaft 14 of the oil-filled motor) to intensify a circulation of the oil (the oil = circulating oil described in Column 2 L:ine 43-Column 3 Line 66).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moehrl USPN 2556435 in view of Witten USPN 4436488 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cameron USPN 5275238.
PNG
media_image1.png
542
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Moehrl USPN 2556435 (Attached Figure A)
Regarding Claim 4: Moehrl USPN 2556435 as modified by Witten USPN 4436488 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 1. Additionally, Moehrl USPN 2556435 discloses the limitations: a pump drive shaft (14, shaft 14 connects the rotor 74 of the motor to the impellers (not shown); located inside bowls 12 of the water pump, Column 3 Line 10-13) connected to a two-sided thrust sliding bearing (i.e. shaft 14 is connected via bearing 28 to element 27, also see Annotated Figure 3 of Moehrl USPN 2556435 (Attached Figure A) above; the examiner notes that since element 27 would inherently provide axial support in the device of Moehrl, it is a thrust bearing; additionally since it has two sides (e.g. a cup shaped upper side surrounding bearing 28 and rod shaped lower side inside bearing 26) it is a two-sided thrust bearing; finally since Applicant has not identified the structure of the two-sided thrust sliding bearing in the instant application, it is the examiners understanding that the language two-sided thrust sliding bearing is simply directed a generic thrust bearing; Accordingly Moehrl teaches a two-sided thrust sliding bearing as shown in Attached Figure A), in order to increase an operability of the oil-filled electric motor (i.e. operation of the motor driving the downhole pump in Figs 1-2; the thrust bearing 27 of Moehrl would increase operability of the oil-filled electric motor, within the same confines as the bearing of the instant application) during operation of a pump (i.e. during operation of the well pump formed by pump impellers located in pump bowls 12, which suck water through openings 20 in strainer 18 for delivery to the surface, Column 1 Line 1-5, Column 2 Line 5-20, Column 3 Line 10-13). Moehrl USPN 2556435 does not disclose the limitations: a labyrinth-screw pump.
However Cameron USPN 5275238 does disclose the limitations: a labyrinth-screw pump (110, Column 3 Line 4-26, Figs 2-3; since the pump 110 of Cameron has the structure claimed, it is a labyrinth-screw pump as claimed) having a rotor (rotor 10 having external right-handed screw thread which is rotated by drive sleeve 12 connected to the motor, Column 3 Line 4-26, Figs 2-3) and a sleeve (stator 11 having internal left-handed screw thread which extends around the rotor 10, Column 3 Line 4-26, Figs 2-3) with a multi-start screw thread of different directions (as described both the rotor 10 and stator/sleeve 11 both have double start (i.e. multi-start) screw threads and the threads of the rotor and stator/sleeve have different direction threads as claimed)
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the impeller pump (well pump formed by pump impellers located in pump bowls 12) of Moehrl USPN 2556435 as modified by Witten USPN 4436488 so as to prevent cavitation during operation of the pump by using a labyrinth-screw pump 110 of Cameron USPN 5275238 (Column 3 Line 8-25), in light of the teachings of Cameron USPN 5275238, in order to prevent cavitation during operation of the pump (Cameron - Column 3 Line 8-25).
Examiner's Note: The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP § 2123).
Additionally the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP § 2125).
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Furthermore: with respect to the prior art and the determination of obviousness, it has been held that Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences (i.e. a gap) between the prior art and an invention DOES NOT ESTABLISH the inventions nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). Rather, in determining obviousness the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. And factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. (See MPEP § 2141).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 4 Line 1-3: Applicant argues that the drawing objections have been overcome by amendments to the drawings.
--Examiner disagrees. No amendments to the drawings have been made, thus Applicant has not overcome the drawing objections.--.
Page 4 Line 14-Page 6 Line 15: Applicant traverses the rejection of claim 1 based on Moehrl in view of Witten by arguing that: the combination does not provide two compensators as claimed, Witten’s Diaphragm compensator is not positioned as claimed, and that there is no reason to combine the prior art.
--Examiner disagrees. With regards to the claim language a compensator installed in the heat exchanger – the examiner notes that this is very broad claim language. And the claim language in question only requires that the compensator is installed in the heat exchanger, in the rejection the examiner explains that the articulated compensator is installed in the heat exchanger – thus it addresses the language of the claim. Additionally, there are no particularly recited features which are not addressed by the articulated compensator, thus there is nothing that would preclude the art of Moehrl from addressing the claim language in question.
In response to Applicant's argument (Page 5 Line 11-18) that elements 38,40,42,38a of Moehrl are not a diaphragm compensator, Applicant misinterprets the principle that claims are interpreted in the light of the specification. Although the elements argued are found as examples or embodiments in the specification, they were not claimed explicitly. Nor were the words that are used in the claims defined in the specification to require these limitations. A reading of the specification provides no evidence to indicate that these limitations must be imported into the claims to give meaning to disputed terms. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
In response to Applicant’s argument (Page 5 Line 19-Page 6 Line 6) – which argues against the prior art of Witten USPN 4436488 individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the rejection at issue the examiner explains that the art of Moehrl teaches a bottom of the casing, which is located outside a main zone of the heat exchanger. And that Witten teaches a diaphragm compensator located at a bottom of the casing. Thus when Moehrl is modified to include the diaphragm compensator located at the bottom of the casing as taught by Witten [Wingdings font/0xE0] the diaphragm compensator of Witten will be at the bottom of the casing of Moehrl.
AND since the bottom of the casing of Moehrl is understood to be located outside a main zone of the heat exchanger – the combination of prior art teaches that the diaphragm compensator (located at the bottom of the casing) is located outside a main zone of the heat exchanger as claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument (Page 6 Line 9-15) the examiner notes that Applicant is repeating arguments that have already been addressed. Thus these arguments are not persuasive, for the same reasons already discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments (Page 6 Line 16-Page 9 Line 1) with respect to claim(s) 2, 3, and have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights