DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-4, 6-13 & 16-25 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on May 8, 2026. Claims 5, 14 & 15 stand canceled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on May 8, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 & 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 13 & 25 each recite “distilled tall oil fatty acid” in duplicate. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 13 & 25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 13 & 25 each recite one or more emulsifiers that are unclear and, as such, the scope, metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. As non-limiting examples: (1) it is unclear what a “water solvent” refers to – is this water, a solvent comprising water, a solvent for water, or other?; (2) it is unclear what “2/3-amide of tall oil fatty acid and polyamines” refers to – specifically, what does 2/3 refer to; and is this material a salt as listed in Table 3?; (3) it is unclear what “oxidized tall oil/fatty amidoamine blend” refers to – what is oxidized? The tall oil or the fatty amidoamine or both?. The chemical make-up of one or more of these emulsifiers is unclear. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. It is recommended that these claims be canceled. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-13 & 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alanqari et al. (US 2021/0292231).
With respect to Claim 1, Alanqari discloses a method of sealing a casing or a casing-casing annulus, comprising: applying a sealant composition to the casing or the casing-casing annulus, the sealant composition comprising: volcanic ash (Alanqari: Sections [0002], [0004]-[0006], [0024], [0025] & [0096]); wherein Alanqari discloses one or more embodiments where cement is not necessarily required, which is considered to disclose “wherein the sealant composition does not comprise cement” as instantly claimed.
Alanqari further teaches one or more embodiments where the sealant composition comprises a resin system comprising an epoxy resin; and one or more embodiments where the resin system comprises a crosslinker/curing agent to increase the bonding of the sealant composition (Alanqari: Sections [0052]-[0066]); wherein Alanqari teaches one or more materials instantly claimed and/or described as a “crosslinker”. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with the resin and crosslinker, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ an epoxy resin and a crosslinker in the sealant composition as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the bonding of the sealant composition and/or yield predictable results in wellbore sealing applications. (Alanqari: Sections [0052]-[0066]).
Alanqari further teaches the sealant composition comprising the volcanic ash, the epoxy resin and the crosslinker in amount ranges that overlap or encompass the ranges as instantly claimed and/or described in the instant specification, based on the desired properties (Alanqari: Sections [0034], [0035], [0052]-[0066] & [0073]). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly limit the weight ranges of the components as respectively claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide/prepare the sealant composition as desired with suitable amounts of components based on the desired properties insofar as because it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) wherein claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed concentration ranges for each component as critical and it is unclear if any unexpected results are achieved by using the instantly claimed concentration ranges. Since the composition of Alanqari is suggested as achieving sealing as disclosed by Applicant, it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of using the presently claimed concentration ranges, and, as such, the determination of percents of each component as claimed would be achievable through routine experimentation in the art.
It is also noted that, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for subterranean sealing, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including injecting a composition comprising components as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Alanqari, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued desired amounts of the injected components with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claims 2, 6, 21 & 22, Alanqari teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1; and further teaches the respective amounts of components for reasons as set forth above with respect to Claim 1, respectively.
With respect to Claims 3 & 4, Alanqari teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Alanqari further discloses a particle diameter range within the range as respectively claimed, which is considered to provide for particle size ranges as respectively claimed (Alanqari: Section [0035]). To the extent there is any difference between this feature as disclosed by Alanqari and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claims 7-10, Alanqari teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Alanqari further discloses the epoxy resin as respectively claimed (Alanqari: Sections [0052]-[0066]).
With respect to Claim 11, Alanqari teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Alanqari further teaches the sealant composition comprising a crosslinker selected from the group as instantly claimed (Alanqari: Sections [0052]-[0066] & [0073]).
With respect to Claim 12, Alanqari teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Alanqari further discloses “…wherein the sealant composition further comprises an accelerator, a retarder, a weighting material, or combinations thereof” (Alanqari: Sections [0074]-[0076]).
With respect to Claim 13, Alanqari teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Alanqari further teaches examples where the sealant composition comprises an emulsifier as instantly claimed (Alanqari: Section [0115]; Examples; Table 3). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with the emulsifier, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the emulsifier in the sealant composition as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to yield predictable results in wellbore sealing applications. (Alanqari: Section [0115]; Examples; Table 3).
With respect to Claim 16, Alanqari teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1; and further teaches wherein the crosslinker comprises diethylenetriamine (DETA) (Alanqari: Sections [0052]-[0066]).
With respect to Claim 17-20, Alanqari teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 1. Alanqari further teaches one or more embodiments of mixing additives to the volcanic ash mixture; teaches one or more embodiments/examples of employing additives such as an emulsifier, and a resin system comprising an epoxy resin and crosslinker; and also teaches tailoring speed and time of mixing and employing simulations with respect to mixing to optimize pumping of the composition (Alanqari: Sections [0030]-[0032], [0052]-[0066], [0079] & [0115]; Examples; Table 3). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the features of mixing as respectively claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mix the components of the composition in a desired order for a desired duration, such as respectively claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to optimize pumping the composition. (Alanqari: Sections [0030]-[0032], [0052]-[0066], [0079] & [0115]; Examples; Table 3).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-13 & 16-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-13 & 16-25 of copending Application No. 19/010,313 (‘313 hereinafter), in view of Goodwin (US 3,576,211). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application overlap in scope with those of ‘313 in view of Goodwin and do not contain any additional limitations that are patentably distinguishable. The instant application discloses a method of sealing a formation with a sealant composition comprising volcanic ash, an epoxy resin and a crosslinker, which overlaps in scope with ‘313 which discloses a method of sealing a formation with a sealant composition comprising volcanic ash, an epoxy resin and a crosslinker. The claims of ‘313 differ in reciting the sealing with respect to a water-bearing formation, and not reciting sealing with respect to a casing or casing-casing annulus as instantly claimed. Goodwin further teaches wherein sealing compositions are employed in sealing water-bearing zones and casing/annular regions (Goodwin: Col. 1, Ln. 5-20). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claims of ‘313 to seal a known alternative area, such as a casing or casing-casing annulus as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to yield predictable results in subterranean sealing applications.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4, 6-13 & 16-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-3 & 7-25 of copending Application No. 19/010,486 (‘486 hereinafter), in view of Gamwell et al. (WO 2016/048303). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application overlap in scope with those of ‘486 in view of Gamwell and do not contain any additional limitations that are patentably distinguishable. The instant application discloses a method of sealing a formation with a sealant composition comprising volcanic ash, an epoxy resin and a crosslinker, which overlaps in scope with ‘486 which discloses a method of sealing a formation with a sealant composition comprising volcanic ash, an epoxy resin and a crosslinker. The claims of ‘486 differ in reciting the sealing with respect to treating an unconsolidated sand formation, and not reciting sealing with respect to casing or casing-casing annulus as instantly claimed. Gamwell further teaches wherein sealing compositions comprising resins and crosslinkers are employed in sealing casing/annular regions and in sand consolidation (Gamwell: in at least Sections [0045], [0051], [0054],[0065]-[0068]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claims of ‘486 to seal a known alternative area, such as a casing or casing-casing annulus as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to yield predictable results in subterranean sealing applications.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments regarding the objections to Claim 12 are persuasive. As such, these objections are withdrawn. The amendments regarding the objections to the specification and Claims 13 & 14 and regarding the 35 USC § 112 rejections have been fully considered; and are persuasive in-part. As such, these objections and rejections are withdrawn in-part and maintained in-part as set forth above. Further, some amendments raise new objections and/or issues under 35 USC § 112 as set forth above.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-4, 6-14 & 16-22 under 103 as being unpatentable over Alanqari et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As such, for reasons discussed below, the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103 in view Alanqari et al., with updates to address amendments.
Applicants assert that the instantly claimed ranges of volcanic ash and epoxy resin both fall outside of the broadest ranges disclosed in Alanqari; and there is no disclosure in Alanqari that suggests modifying the compositions in Alanqari to arrive at the instantly claimed ranges of volcanic ash, epoxy resin, and crosslinker; a person of skill in the art would not readily look to significantly increase the amount of epoxy resin and decrease the amount of volcanic ash in the compositions described in Alanqari and expect the resulting compositions to be useful for sealing a casing or a casing-casing annulus; and, the exemplary formulations demonstrated high yield point values when undergoing rheology testing, and exemplary formulations #1 and #2 rapidly thickened and hardened at room temperature from a free flowing liquid to a hard gel, which are advantageous properties for a sealant composition.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicants’ argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicants’ invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicants rely (i.e., high yield point values, rapid thickening and hardening at room temperature from a free flowing liquid to a hard gel) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, it is noted that the instant specification in at least [0037], [0052] & [0098] describes the broader ranges for the volcanic ash (such as about 0.01 wt % to about 75 wt%), epoxy resin (such as about 30 wt% to about 99 wt%), and crosslinker (such as about 0.1 wt% to about 50 wt%). As such, the assertions of advantageous properties or utility of the instant invention does not appear to be limited to the ranges as instantly claimed.
Alanqari further teaches the sealant composition comprising the volcanic ash, the epoxy resin and the crosslinker in amount ranges that overlap or encompass the ranges as instantly claimed and/or described in the instant specification, based on the desired properties (Alanqari: Sections [0034], [0035], [0052]-[0066] & [0073]). As such, although the reference fails to explicitly limit the weight ranges of the components as respectively claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide/prepare the sealant composition as desired with suitable amounts of components based on the desired properties insofar as because it has been held wherein generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.). See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 wherein it was held "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) wherein claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Additionally, the Examiner notes, obviousness can be shown in a predictable art when a difference between the claimed ranges is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. In re Brandt, 886 F. 3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The instant specification fails to explicitly establish the instantly claimed concentration ranges for each component as critical and it is unclear if any unexpected results are achieved by using the instantly claimed concentration ranges. Since the composition of Alanqari is suggested as achieving sealing as disclosed by Applicant, it does not appear that such would be considered an unexpected result of using the presently claimed concentration ranges, and, as such, the determination of percents of each component as claimed would be achievable through routine experimentation in the art.
It is also noted that, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for subterranean sealing, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including injecting a composition comprising components as set forth above. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Alanqari, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued desired amounts of the injected components with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Applicants’ remarks regarding the double patenting rejections are noted. As a terminal disclaimer has not been filed, these rejections are maintained as set forth above, with updates to address amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alanqari et al. discloses and/or teaches a method of sealing a casing or casing-casing annulus by applying, and thereby sealing with, a sealant composition comprising volcanic ash, epoxy resin and crosslinker as set forth above. With respect to Claim 23, the reference, however, fails to disclose the method steps of applying and sealing a casing or casing-casing annulus with a combination of at least the features of the volcanic ash in an amount and a particulate form with a diameter range as respectively claimed, bisphenol-A-epichlorohydrin epoxy resin comprising an oxirane mono [(C12-14)-alkyloxy)methyl] derivative in a range as instantly claimed, and diethylenetriamine in a range as instantly claimed, wherein the sealant composition does not comprise a cement as instantly claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANURADHA AHUJA whose telephone number is (571)272-3067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/ANURADHA AHUJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights