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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the second charges” appears to be a typo for “the second gun charges”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
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 roller assembly of claims 12,13 and 19 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6, 10 and 11 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the third gun charges". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It will be examined as if it depends from claim 5
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the first gun charges " and “the second charges”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “a swivel assembly”, whereas the parent claim, 9, already recites a swivel assembly. This makes the claim unclear
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by WO 2022122742 A2 to MONTENEGRO.
Regarding claim 1: MONTENEGRO discloses 1. A perforating gun for well decommissioning, comprising:
a tubular housing 202;
a weighted spacer 214 [0050];
first gun charges 12 of a first size linearly aligned with the weighted spacer inside the tubular housing (Figures 3 and 4); and
second gun charges 10 of a second size, the size of the second gun charges being larger than the size of the first gun charges(liner weight to explosive [0060]), wherein the second gun charges are positioned opposite the first gun charges inside the tubular housing.(Figure 3).see also ([0052-0060] and figure 5. The liner weight to explosive in order to adjust for different clearances is interpreted as the charge 10 are larger than that of 12, to produce the jets shown in figure 5 )
Regarding claim 5: MONTENEGRO discloses 5. The perforating gun of claim 1, further comprising third gun charges of a third size, the size of the third gun charges being larger than the size of the first gun charges and smaller than the size of the second gun charges.(Figure 8, [0057])
Regarding claim 6: MONTENEGRO discloses [[6]]5. The perforating gun of claim 2, wherein the third gun charges are radially positioned inside the tubular housing between the first gun charges and the second gun charges.(Figure 8)
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022122742 A2 to MONTENEGRO in view of US 20220178218 A1 to Burky.
(If one where to disagree that Montenegro discloses different sized gun charges, the follow alternative rejections are presented)
Regarding claim 1: MONTENEGRO discloses 1. A perforating gun 200 for well decommissioning, comprising:
a tubular housing 202;
a weighted spacer 214 [0050];
first gun charges 12 of a first size linearly aligned with the weighted spacer inside the tubular housing (Figures 3 and 4); and
second gun charges 10 of a second size, wherein the second gun charges are positioned opposite the first gun charges inside the tubular housing (Figure 3).see also ([0052-0054] and figure 5 )
While MONTENEGRO does disclose using different shaped charges (liner weight to explosive [0060]) in order to adjust for different clearances, if one where to disagree that the size of the second gun charges being larger than the size of the first gun charges, Burky teaches using different sized charges (570,575) in a perforating gun 550 in order to produce different openings (Figs 5 , 6a-c).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Montenegro to use different sized gun charges and have the size of the second gun charges being larger than the size of the first gun charges, in view of Burkey, as no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Furthermore, using different sized gun charges of Burky in the system of Montenegro would achieve the desired goals of Montenegro of producing similar perforation with different clearances.
Regarding claim 5: MONTENEGRO discloses 5. The perforating gun of claim 1, further comprising third gun charges of a third shaped charge (810,805), the size of the third charges being larger than the size of the first charges and smaller than the size of the second charges.(Figure 8, [0057-0058])
While MONTENEGRO does disclose using different shaped charges (liner weight to explosive [0060]) in order to adjust for different clearances, if one where to disagree that the size of the third charges being larger than the size of the first charges and smaller than the size of the second charges, Burky teaches using different sized charges (570,575) in a perforating gun 550 in order to produce different openings (Figs 5 , 6a-c).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Montenegro to use different sized gun charges and have the size of the third gun charges being larger than the size of the first gun charges and smaller than the second gun charges, in view of Burkey, as no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Furthermore, using different sized gun charges of Burky in the system of Montenegro would achieve the desired goals of Montenegro of producing similar perforation with different clearances.
Regarding claim 6: MONTENEGRO discloses [[6]]5. The perforating gun of claim 2, wherein the third gun charges are radially positioned inside the tubular housing between the first gun charges and the second gun charges.(Figure 8)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022122742 A2 to MONTENEGRO and US 20220178218 A1 to Burky, further in view of US 20160194934 A1 to Bakken.
Regarding claim 2: MONTENEGRO, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except 2. The perforating gun of claim 1, wherein the perforating gun is connected to a washing section of a perforate, wash, and concrete ('PWC') assembly.
Bakken teaches a “ONE TRIP PERFORATING AND WASHING TOOL FOR PLUGGING AND ABANDONING WELLS” with a PWC assembly 1 having a perforating gun 18, a wash assembly and a seat tool using cement ([0040-0041], fig 8).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified MONTENEGRO and use his perforating gun assembly the system of Bakken, so as to perform a single trip method of plug and abandonment (Abstract, [0017])
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022122742 A2 to MONTENEGRO, US 20220178218 A1 to Burky, US 20160194934 A1 to Bakken and US 4410051 A to Daniel.
Regarding claim 3: MONTENEGRO, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except 3. The perforating gun of claim 2, wherein the perforating gun is connected to the PWC assembly by a swivel assembly that allows the perforating gun to rotate relative to the PWC assembly.
Daniel teaches a downhole perforation assembly with a swivel 40 between the upper portion and the lower portion with the guns 70.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Montenegro and include a swivel assembly above his gun assembly when adding his gun into an assembly, in view of Daniel, so as to allow “for free rotational movement between adjoining upper and lower portions of the housing.”(Col 4, lines 26-32)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022122742 A2 to MONTENEGRO, US 20220178218 A1 to Burky, and US 20150053405 A1 to Bakken, in view of US 20130312963 A1 to Larsen.
Regarding claim 4: MONTENEGRO, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except 4. The perforating gun of claim 2, wherein the PWC assembly is attached to one of a slickline, wireline, and coiled tubing.
Montenegro is silent as to the conveyance and Bakken only mentions “tubbing” 11.
Larsen teaches running a combined cleaning and perforating tool on coiled tubing [0072]
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Montenegro and run his assembly on coiled tubing, in view of Larsen, as no more than Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. Furthermore, coiled tubing for wellbore tools is notoriously conventional.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022122742 A2 to MONTENEGRO and US 20220178218 A1 to Burky, further in view of US 20220074289 A1 to Shelton.
Regarding claim 4: MONTENEGRO, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except 7. The perforating gun of claim 1, wherein the weighted spacer abuts a portion of an inner surface of the tubular housing.
Shelton teaches a similar tool with a weighted spacer element 72 for the same purpose as Montenegro where the spacer 72 abuts a portion of an inner surface of a tubular housing.(Figure 17)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Montenegro such that the weighted spacer abuts a portion of an inner surface of the tubular housing, in view of Shelton, as no more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the weighted spacer abut the housing, since applicant has not disclosed that abutting or not abutting solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would equally well with either solution.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022122742 A2 to MONTENEGRO in view of view of US 20160194934 A1 to Bakken.
Regarding claim 8: MONTENEGRO discloses 8. A method, comprising
lowering a perforating gun 200 into a nonvertical wellbore (Figure 1), wherein the perforating gun passively orients itself using a weighted spacer 214 and a swivel assembly 212 [0051];
detonating perforating charges in the perforating gun [0010].
However Montenegro fails to explicitly disclose “for well decommissioning” or a carrier.
Bakken teaches well abandonment (interpreted as decommissioning) with a tool 1 having a perforating gun 18 attached below it .([0040].Fig. 8 the tool can be considered “a carrier”)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified the method of Montenegro and use his perforating gun as part of a system, including a carrier, in a method of well decommissioning, in view of Bakken, so as to permanently plug a well. [0001].
Regarding claim 10: MONTENEGRO discloses 10. The method of claim 8, wherein the perforating gun passively orients itself by allowing a gravitation force to rotate the perforating gun such that the weighted spacer and the first gun charges face a low side of the perforating gun, and the second charges face a high side of the perforating gun (Figures 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 11: MONTENEGRO discloses 11. The method of claim 10, wherein [[a]]the swivel assembly connected to the perforating gun allows the perforating gun to freely rotate within the wellbore. (Bearings 212 allow portions of the gun to rotate freely in the wellbore)
However, if oner were to disagree, the reversal of components in a prior art reference, where there is no disclosed significance to such reversal, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Consequently, It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Montenegro and place his bearing assemblies at the exterior of his tool and have the entire tool allow to rotate with gravity. This modification would amount to no more than a design choice for how to allow the gun charges to orient themselves with gravity.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022122742 A2 to MONTENEGRO and US 20150053405 A1 to Bakken further in view of US 20220178218 A1 to Burky
Regarding claim 9: MONTENEGRO discloses 9. The method of claim 8, wherein the perforating gun comprises:
a tubular housing 202,
first gun charges 12 of a first size linearly aligned inside the tubular housing with the weighted spacer;
second gun charges 10 of a second size, the size of the second gun charges being larger than the size of the first gun charges(liner weight to explosive [0060]), wherein the second gun charges are positioned opposite the first gun charges inside the tubular housing.(Figure 3).see also ([0052-0060] and figure 5. The liner weight to explosive in order to adjust for different clearances is interpreted as the charge 10 are larger than that of 12, to produce the jets shown in figure 5 )
While MONTENEGRO does disclose using different shaped charges (liner weight to explosive [0060]) in order to adjust for different clearances, if one where to disagree that the size of the second gun charges being larger than the size of the first gun charges, Burky teaches using different sized charges (570,575) in a perforating gun 550 in order to produce different openings (Figs 5 , 6a-c).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Montenegro to use different sized gun charges and have the size of the second gun charges being larger than the size of the first gun charges, in view of Burkey, as no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Furthermore, using different sized gun charges of Burky in the system of Montenegro would achieve the desired goals of Montenegro of producing similar perforation with different clearances.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022122742 A2 to MONTENEGRO in view of view of US 20150053405 A1 to Bakken in view of US 4410051 A to Daniel.
Regarding claim 12: MONTENEGRO discloses the claimed invention except 12. The method of claim 8, the carrier comprising a roller assembly that assists the carrier in traversing downward through the wellbore and around obstacles.
Daniel teaches a perforating system with a carrier (figure 2) having multiple roller assemblies (30,86,90 and 74).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Montenegro and add roller assemblies to the carrier, in view of Daniel, so as to support the gun system as it moves through the tubular interior of the well (Col 2, lines 11-12)
Regarding claim 13: MONTENEGRO discloses the claimed invention except 13. The method of claim 12, wherein the roller assembly is on an opposite side of the carrier from the perforating gun.
Daniel teaches a perforating system with a carrier (figure 2, connection sub 68 can be considered as a carrier) having multiple roller assemblies (30, and 74) and a perforation gun 70 with at least one roller assembly 30 on the opposite side of the carrier 68 than that of the perforating gun 70
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Montenegro and add roller assemblies to the carrier, in view of Daniel, so as to support the gun system as it moves through the tubular interior of the well (Col 2, lines 11-12)
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022122742 A2 to MONTENEGRO and US 20150053405 A1 to Bakken in view of US 20130312963 A1 to Larsen.
Regarding claim 14: MONTENEGRO, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except 14. The method of claim 8, wherein the carrier is attached to one of a slickline, wireline, and coiled tubing.
Montenegro is silent as to the conveyance and Bakken only mentions “tubbing” 11.
Larsen teaches running a perforating tool on coiled tubing [0072]
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Montenegro and run his assembly on coiled tubing, in view of Larsen, as no more than Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. Furthermore, coiled tubing for wellbore tools is notoriously conventional.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022122742 A2 to MONTENEGRO in view of US 4410051 A to Daniel and US 20220178218 A1 to Burky.
Regarding claim 15: MONTENEGRO discloses 15. a perforating gun 200 for well decommissioning, comprising:
a tubular housing 202;
a weighted spacer 214 [0050];
first gun charges 12 of a first size linearly aligned with the weighted spacer inside the tubular housing (Figures 3 and 4); and
second gun charges 10 of a second size, the size of the second gun charges being larger than the size of the first gun charges(liner weight to explosive [0060]), wherein the second gun charges are positioned opposite the first gun charges inside the tubular housing.(Figure 3).see also ([0052-0060] and figure 5. The liner weight to explosive in order to adjust for different clearances is interpreted as the charge 10 are larger than that of 12, to produce the jets shown in figure 5 )
MONTENEGRO fails to explicitly disclose a carrier that includes a perforating gun
a cable configured to lower the carrier within a wellbore; and
a control unit for lowering the carrier into the wellbore and igniting the first and second charges.
Daniel teaches a perforating system with a carrier (figure 2, at least 68 can be considered a carrier) with perforating gun assembly 70, a cable 20 configured to lower the assembly, and a control unit 18 for operating the system.(col 5, lines 2-5)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Montenegro and use his gun 200 with a deployment system of Daniel with a cable, control unit and a carrier, in view of Daniel, so as to deploy the perforating gun into a wellbore and use it as intended.
While MONTENEGRO does disclose using different shaped charges (liner weight to explosive [0060]) in order to adjust for different clearances, if one where to disagree that the size of the second gun charges being larger than the size of the first gun charges, Burky teaches using different sized charges (570,575) in a perforating gun 550 in order to produce different openings (Figs 5 , 6a-c).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Montenegro to use different sized gun charges and have the size of the second gun charges being larger than the size of the first gun charges, in view of Burkey, as no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Furthermore, using different sized gun charges of Burky in the system of Montenegro would achieve the desired goals of Montenegro of producing similar perforation with different clearances.
Regarding claim 18: MONTENEGRO discloses the claimed invention except 18. The system of claim 15, wherein the carrier is attached to one of a slickline, wireline, and coiled tubing.
Daniel teaches a perforating system with a carrier (figure 2) attached to a cable 20
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Montenegro and use his gun 200 with a deployment system of Daniel with a cable, in view of Daniel, so as to deploy the perforating gun into a wellbore and use it as intended.
Regarding claim 19: MONTENEGRO discloses the claimed invention except 19. The system of claim 15, the carrier further including a roller assembly that assists the carrier in traversing downward through the wellbore and around obstacles.
Daniel teaches a perforating system with a carrier (figure 2) having multiple roller assemblies (30,86,90 and 74).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Montenegro and use his gun 200 with a deployment system of Daniel having a carrier with rollers, in view of Daniel, so as to deploy the perforating gun into a wellbore and support the housing moves through the tubular interior of the well (Col 2, lines 11-12)
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022122742 A2 to MONTENEGRO, US 4410051 A to Daniel and US 20220178218 A1 to Burky, further in view of US 20160194934 A1 to Bakken.
Regarding claim 16: MONTENEGRO discloses the claimed invention except 16. The system of claim 15, wherein carrier further includes a perforate, wash, and concrete ('PWC') assembly, the perforating gun being connected to a lower end of a washing section of the PWC.
Bakken teaches an apparatus 1 for a single trip to perforate, clean and cement a wellbore for abandoning (Abstract) the well where the apparatus has the perforating gun at the lower end of the deployed apparatus.(Figure 8)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have further modified system of Montenegro to incorporate a perforate, wash, and concrete ('PWC') assembly above his perforating gun into a combined system, in view of Bakken, so as to be able to perform a perforation, cleaning and sealing operation in a single trip (Abstract).
Regarding claim 17: MONTENEGRO discloses the claimed invention except 17. The system of claim 16, wherein the perforating gun connects to the washing section of the PWC assembly by a swivel assembly that allows the perforating gun to rotate freely within the wellbore relative to the PWC assembly.
Danel teaches a swivel 40 as part of his assembly above his perforating gun assembly 70.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have further modified Montenegro and include a swivel above his perforating gun, in view of Daniel, so as to allow “for free rotational movement between adjoining upper and lower portions of the housing.”(Col 4, lines 26-32)
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022122742 A2 to MONTENEGRO, US 4410051 A to Daniel and US 20220178218 A1 to Burky, further in view of US 20220074289 A1 to Shelton.
Regarding claim 4: MONTENEGRO, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except 7. The perforating gun of claim 1, wherein the weighted spacer abuts a portion of an inner surface of the tubular housing.
Shelton teaches a similar tool with a weighted spacer element 72 for the same purpose as Montenegro where the spacer 72 abuts a portion of an inner surface of a tubular housing.(Figure 17)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Montenegro such that the weighted spacer abuts a portion of an inner surface of the tubular housing, in view of Shelton, as no more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the weighted spacer abut the housing, since applicant has not disclosed that abutting or not abutting solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would equally well with either solution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20030188867 A1 discloses a perforating gun system with a weight to orienting the gun in a wellbore,
US 12359541 B2 discloses a perforating gun system with different sized gun charges.
US 20220074289 A1 discloses a perforating gun system that self-orientates via a weight.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MACDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 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, 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.
/STEVEN A MACDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights