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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2026 have been fully considered.
The claim objections are withdrawn.
I) Applicant argues that US 20070102198 A1 to Oxford does not discloses the newly claimed seal receiving notch proximate the strengthening feature.
The Examiner disagrees.
Regarding the notched overlapping joint and the notch, applicant’s specification states the overlap may be “, the overlap may be face-to-face, end-to-end, butt-to-butt, or any other overlap, as well as combinations of the same.” [0026]. Oxford’s joint is interpreted as having an overlap, and at least the section of the joint where weld 24 is shown can be considered a notch. Furthermore, notch can be considered to include the space in between the angled surfaces and extend into some arbitrary portion of the shown straight/flat sided annular channel between 70 and 52. “Proximate” is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as very near or close. The notch of Oxford is close to element 80 of Oxford.
Applicant further argues that Oxford does not disclose a seal-receiving notch or a direct structural interaction between the crack compliant seal and the geometric mechanical strengthening feature,
The Examiner disagrees.
As above, the Examiner interprets Oxford to disclose the claimed notch as the space in between the angled surfaces and extending into some arbitrary portion of the shown straight/flat sided annular channel between 70 and 52. Furthermore Oxford discloses crack compliant seal within the notch, and thus it would appear that the notch is a seal-receiving notch. Additionally, Oxfords crack compliant seal is in contact with element 80, as claimed by applicant.
II) The amendments have overcome the rejections based on US 2289271 to Kane, and thus they are withdrawn.
III) The amendments have overcome the rejections based on US 20160047502 A1 to Varghese, and thus they are withdrawn.
IV) Applicant argues “Wasa-Tverlid generally concerns expandable threaded pipe joints and sealing structures associated therewith. However, Wasa-Tverlid does not disclose a seal-receiving notch formed proximate a geometric mechanical strengthening feature and extending thereto, nor does it disclose a crack compliant seal positioned within such a notch and contacting the geometric mechanical strengthening feature. The rejection again relies upon a broad interpretation of various recesses or spaces as the claimed notch. Yet the amended claims no longer merely require a notch. Rather, the claims require a specifically-recited seal-receiving notch having a direct structural relationship both to the geometric mechanical strengthening feature and to the crack compliant seal. Wasa-Tverlid lacks these features”.
The Examiner disagrees.
Wasa-Tverlid is interpreted as disclosing an overlapping junction/joint with a specific location between sets of threads, including an additional cut-out 20, for seal 20. this location is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed notch. The seal is configured to deform, and thus is “crack” compliant. As such Wasa-Tverlid is interpreted as disclosing the “seal-receiving notch having a direct structural relationship both to the geometric mechanical strengthening feature and to the crack compliant seal”
V) The amendments have overcome the rejections based on US 10060225 B2 to Wolf, and thus they are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5,12, 15-20, 27, and 30-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070102198 A1 to Oxford.
Regarding claim 1: Oxford discloses 1. A downhole tool (Figure 2), comprising:
a first member 70, the first member having a first member inside diameter (ID1), a first member outside diameter (OD1), a first member thickness (t1), and a first member hardness value (HV1);
a second member 52, the second member having a second member inside diameter (ID2), a second member outside diameter (OD2), a second member thickness (t2), and a second member hardness value (HV2), the first and second members positioned proximate one another forming an overlapping space therebetween;
a geometric mechanical strengthening 80 feature located between the first member and the second member, the geometric mechanical strengthening feature configured to increase an engineering rating of the overlapping space (the locking wire is interpreted as such) wherein the first member and the second member further define a notched overlapping junction that includes a notch formed by opposed angled surfaces of the first member and the second member proximate the geometric mechanical strengthening feature (Figure 2, note the examiner interpreters the joint as an overlapping joint/ junction with a notch formed between 70 and 52 at its exterior surface between “opposed angled surfaces of the first member and the second member”, Further note that the notch can be considered to include the space in between the angled surfaces and extend into some portion of the shown straight/flat sided annular channel between 70 and 52); and
a crack compliant seal 82 [0050] positioned at the overlapping space and within the notch, the crack compliant seal positioned between the geometric mechanical strengthening feature 80 a corrosive fluid that the first and second members are configured to come in contact with. (As best understood the brazing material is positioned as claimed, both between the central passage and 80 and between 80 and the exterior, furthermore, as best understood the limitation is only about the position of the crack compliant seal, and does not require a corrosive fluid. However, note, as per applicant’s specification Applicant has defined corrosive fluids as hydrocarbons, H2S fluids, CO2 fluids, acids, bases, etc.) [0011]. And that drill bits for drilling into earth formations are typically and well known to use hydrocarbon based drilling muds, and oil field equipment is configured to carry and come into contact with hydrocarbons. )
wherein the notch comprises a seal-receiving notch formed proximate the geometric mechanical strengthening feature (Figure 2), the seal-receiving notch extending to the geometric mechanical strengthening feature 80, and wherein at least a portion of the crack compliant seal is positioned within the seal-receiving notch and contacts the geometric mechanical strengthening feature (Figure 2).
However, Oxford fails to disclose explicitly, the crack compliant seal having a compliant seal hardness value (HVcs) less than or equal to one or more of the first member hardness value (HV1) or second member hardness value (HV2).
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 made it such that the brazing alloy of Oxford had a hardness value (HVcs) less than or equal to one or more of the first member hardness value (HV1) and second member hardness value (HV2), as "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (higher, lower or equal), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16: Oxford discloses 16. A well system, comprising:
a downhole tool (Figure 2), comprising:
a first member 70, the first member having a first member inside diameter (ID1), a first member outside diameter (OD1), a first member thickness (t1), and a first member hardness value (HV1);
a second member 52, the second member having a second member inside diameter (ID2), a second member outside diameter (OD2), a second member thickness (t2), and a second member hardness value (HV2), the first and second members positioned proximate one another forming an overlapping space therebetween;
a geometric mechanical strengthening 80 feature located between the first member and the second member, the geometric mechanical strengthening feature configured to increase an engineering rating of the overlapping space (the locking wire is interpreted as such) wherein the first member and the second member further define a notched overlapping junction that includes a notch formed by opposed angled surfaces of the first member and the second member proximate the geometric mechanical strengthening feature (Figure 2, note the examiner interpreters the joint as an overlapping joint/ junction with a notch formed between 70 and 52 at its exterior surface between “opposed angled surfaces of the first member and the second member”, Further note that the notch can be considered to include the space in between the angled surfaces and extend into some portion of the shown straight annular channel between 70 and 52); and
a crack compliant seal 82 [0050] positioned at the overlapping space and within the notch, the crack compliant seal positioned between the geometric mechanical strengthening feature 80 a corrosive fluid that the first and second members are configured to come in contact with. (As best understood the brazing material is positioned as claimed, both between the central passage and 80 and between 80 and the exterior, furthermore, as best understood the limitation is only about the position of the crack compliant seal, and does not require a corrosive fluid. However, note, as per applicant’s specification Applicant has defined corrosive fluids as hydrocarbons, H2S fluids, CO2 fluids, acids, bases, etc.) [0011]. And that drill bits for drilling into earth formations are typically and well known to use hydrocarbon based drilling muds, and oil field equipment is configured to carry hydrocarbons. )
wherein the notch comprises a seal-receiving notch formed proximate the geometric mechanical strengthening feature (Figure 2), the seal-receiving notch extending to the geometric mechanical strengthening feature 80, and wherein at least a portion of the crack compliant seal is positioned within the seal-receiving notch and contacts the geometric mechanical strengthening feature (Figure 2).
However, Oxford fails to disclose explicitly, a wellbore, or the crack compliant seal having a compliant seal hardness value (HVcs) less than or equal to one or more of the first member hardness value (HV1) or second member hardness value (HV2).
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 made it such that the brazing alloy of Oxford had a hardness value (HVcs) less than or equal to one or more of the first member hardness value (HV1) and second member hardness value (HV2), as "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (higher, lower or equal), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, 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 Oxford to use his drill bit in a wellbore, as it is notoriously conventional to drill a wellbore with a drill bit for earth boring, and would amount to no more than using the drill bit for its intended use.
Regarding claim 31: Oxford discloses 31. A method, comprising:
obtaining a first member 70, the first member having a first member inside diameter (ID1), a first member outside diameter (OD1), a first member thickness (t1), and a first member hardness value (HV1);
obtaining a second member 52, the second member having a second member inside diameter (ID2), a second member outside diameter (OD2), a second member thickness (t2), and a second member hardness value (HV2); and
coupling the first and second members together using a geometric mechanical strengthening feature 80 forming an overlapping space therebetween, wherein the first member and the second member further define a notched overlapping junction that includes a notch formed by opposed angled surfaces of the first member and the second member proximate the geometric mechanical strengthening feature (Figure 2, note the examiner interpreters the joint as an overlapping joint/ junction with a notch formed between 70 and 52 at its exterior surface between “opposed angled surfaces of the first member and the second member”, Further note that the notch can be considered to include the space in between the angled surfaces and extend into some portion of the shown straight annular channel between 70 and 52), wherein a crack compliant seal 82 is positioned at the overlapping space within the notch, the crack compliant seal positioned between the geometric mechanical strengthening feature 80 a corrosive fluid that the first and second members are configured to come in contact with. (As best understood the brazing material is positioned as claimed, both between the central passage and 80 and between 80 and the exterior, furthermore, as best understood the limitation is only about the position of the crack compliant seal, and does not require a corrosive fluid. However, note, as per applicant’s specification Applicant has defined corrosive fluids as hydrocarbons, H2S fluids, CO2 fluids, acids, bases, etc.) [0011]. And that drill bits for drilling into earth formations are typically and well known to use hydrocarbon based drilling muds, and oil field equipment is configured to carry hydrocarbons. )
wherein the notch comprises a seal-receiving notch formed proximate the geometric mechanical strengthening feature (Figure 2), the seal-receiving notch extending to the geometric mechanical strengthening feature 80, and wherein at least a portion of the crack compliant seal is positioned within the seal-receiving notch and contacts the geometric mechanical strengthening feature (Figure 2).
However, Oxford fails to disclose explicitly the crack compliant seal having a compliant seal hardness value (HVcs) less than or equal to one or more of the first member hardness value (HV1) or second member hardness value (HV2).
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 made it such that the brazing alloy of Oxford had a hardness value (HVcs) less than or equal to one or more of the first member hardness value (HV1) and second member hardness value (HV2), as "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (higher, lower or equal), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 2,17 and 32: Oxford, as modified discloses wherein the compliant seal hardness value (HVcs) is a post weld heat treatment compliant seal hardness value (HVcs-pw).(see modification above)
Regarding claims 3, 18 and 33: Oxford, as modified discloses the claimed invention except wherein the post weld compliant seal hardness value (HVcs-pw) is 250 or less.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modified the weld of Oxford such that the post weld compliant seal hardness value (HVcs-pw) is 250 or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 4, 19 and 34: Oxford, as modified discloses the claimed invention except wherein the post weld compliant seal hardness value (HVcs-pw) is 250 or less after being subjected to the post weld heat treatment of at least 620 ºC.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modified Oxford such that the post weld compliant seal hardness value (HVcs-pw) is 250 or less after being subjected to the post weld heat treatment of at least 620 ºC, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 5, 20 and 35: Oxford discloses wherein the crack compliant seal includes no more than 1 % mass fraction of nickel. (Oxford discloses a silver based alloy [0050])
If one were to disagree, 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 silver alloy of Oxford to have no more than 1 % mass fraction of nickel, as since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 12, and 27: Oxford discloses further including a high yield strength weld 24 positioned at the overlapping space radially outside of the crack compliant material (Figure 2), however does not disclose explicitly wherein the high yield strength weld having a yield strength of at least 50 ksi.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the weld of Oxford such that the weld has a yield strength of at least 50 ksi, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 15 and 30: Oxford discloses the claimed invention except explicitly wherein the high yield strength weld has a yield strength of at least 80 ksi.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the weld of Stone such that the weld has a yield strength of at least 80 ksi, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 36: Oxford discloses wherein the first member and second member form at least a portion of a downhole tool (Drill bit for earth boring Abstract), However fails to explicitly disclose further including positioning the downhole tool including the crack compliant seal within a wellbore.
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 Oxford to positioning the downhole tool including the crack compliant seal within a wellbore, as it is notoriously conventional to drill a wellbore with a drill bit for earth boring, and placing it in a wellbore for this purpose would amount to no more than using the drill bit for its intended use.
Claim(s) 1, 8-10, 16, 23-25, 31 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9133693 B2 to Wasa Tverlid.
(Wasa Tverlid is introduced to address claims not addressed above)
Regarding claim 1: Wasa Tverlid discloses 1. A downhole tool (Abstract), comprising:
a first member (10’) , the first member having a first member inside diameter (ID1), a first member outside diameter (OD1), a first member thickness (t1), and a first member hardness value (HV1);
a second member (10”), the second member having a second member inside diameter (ID2), a second member outside diameter (OD2), a second member thickness (t2), and a second member hardness value (HV2), the first and second members positioned proximate one another forming an overlapping space therebetween;
a geometric mechanical strengthening (threads 11) feature located between the first member and the second member, the geometric mechanical strengthening feature configured to increase an engineering rating of the overlapping space, wherein the first member and the second member further define a notched overlapping junction that includes a notch formed by opposed angled surfaces of the first member and the second member proximate the geometric mechanical strengthening feature (Figures 5a-c, the location where 15 is located can be considered a notch, and the surfaces of 10’ and 10’’ are angled relative to each other, esp. at 20. The junction is considered to be an overlapping junction ); and
a crack compliant seal 15 positioned at the overlapping space and within the notch (Figures 5a-c,), the crack compliant seal positioned between the geometric mechanical strengthening feature and a corrosive fluid that the first and second members are configured to come in contact with (element 15 is located between threads and both the inside and outside of the pipe, ss above as best understood the limitation is only about the position of the crack compliant seal, and does not require a corrosive fluid. However, wellbore pipe is notoriously well known for carrying and being placed with hydrocarbons),
wherein the notch comprises a seal-receiving notch formed proximate the geometric mechanical strengthening feature, the seal-receiving notch extending to the geometric mechanical strengthening feature, and wherein at least a portion of the crack compliant seal is positioned within the seal-receiving notch and contacts the geometric mechanical strengthening feature(Figures 5a-c shows the seal 15 in the notch and in contact with the threads).
However, Wasa Tverlid fails to disclose explicitly the crack compliant seal having a compliant seal hardness value (HVcs) less than or equal to one or more of the first member hardness value (HV1) or second member hardness value (HV2).
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 made it such that the seal 15 of Wasa Tverlid such that it had a hardness value (HVcs) less than or equal to one or more of the first member hardness value (HV1) and second member hardness value (HV2), as "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (higher, lower or equal), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16: Wasa Tverlid discloses 16. A well system, comprising:
a wellbore (Abstract])
a downhole tool (Abstract), comprising:
a first member (10’) , the first member having a first member inside diameter (ID1), a first member outside diameter (OD1), a first member thickness (t1), and a first member hardness value (HV1);
a second member (10”), the second member having a second member inside diameter (ID2), a second member outside diameter (OD2), a second member thickness (t2), and a second member hardness value (HV2), the first and second members positioned proximate one another forming an overlapping space therebetween;
a geometric mechanical strengthening (threads 11) feature located between the first member and the second member, the geometric mechanical strengthening feature configured to increase an engineering rating of the overlapping space, wherein the first member and the second member further define a notched overlapping junction that includes a notch formed by opposed angled surfaces of the first member and the second member proximate the geometric mechanical strengthening feature (Figures 5a-c, the location where 15 is located can be considered a notch, and the surfaces of 10’ and 10’’ are angled relative to each other, esp. at 20. The junction is considered to be an overlapping junction ); and
a crack compliant seal 15 positioned at the overlapping space and within the notch (Figures 5a-c,), the crack compliant seal positioned between the geometric mechanical strengthening feature and a corrosive fluid that the first and second members are configured to come in contact with (element 15 is located between threads and both the inside and outside of the pipe, as above as best understood the limitation is only about the position of the crack compliant seal, and does not require a corrosive fluid. However, wellbore pipe is notoriously well known for carrying and being placed with hydrocarbons),
wherein the notch comprises a seal-receiving notch formed proximate the geometric mechanical strengthening feature, the seal-receiving notch extending to the geometric mechanical strengthening feature, and wherein at least a portion of the crack compliant seal is positioned within the seal-receiving notch and contacts the geometric mechanical strengthening feature(Figures 5a-c shows the seal 15 in the notch and in contact with the threads).
However, Wasa Tverlid fails to disclose explicitly the crack compliant seal having a compliant seal hardness value (HVcs) less than or equal to one or more of the first member hardness value (HV1) or second member hardness value (HV2).
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 made it such that the seal 15 of Wasa Tverlid such that it had a hardness value (HVcs) less than or equal to one or more of the first member hardness value (HV1) and second member hardness value (HV2), as "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (higher, lower or equal), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 31: Wasa Tverlid discloses 31. ( Currently Amended) A method, comprising:
obtaining a first member 10’, the first member having a first member inside diameter (ID1), a first member outside diameter (OD1), a first member thickness (t1), and a first member hardness value (HV1);
obtaining a second member 10, the second member having a second member inside diameter (ID2), a second member outside diameter (OD2), a second member thickness (t2), and a second member hardness value (HV2); and
coupling the first and second members together using a geometric mechanical strengthening feature (threads 11) forming an overlapping space therebetween, wherein the first member and the second member further define a notched overlapping junction that includes a notch formed by opposed angled surfaces of the first member and the second member proximate the geometric mechanical strengthening feature, and further wherein a crack compliant seal is positioned at the overlapping space and within the notch, the crack compliant seal positioned between the geometric mechanical strengthening feature and a corrosive fluid that the first and second members are configured to come in contact with (element 15 is located between threads and both the inside and outside of the pipe, as above as best understood the limitation is only about the position of the crack compliant seal, and does not require a corrosive fluid. However, wellbore pipe is notoriously well known for carrying and being placed with hydrocarbons),
wherein the notch comprises a seal-receiving notch formed proximate the geometric mechanical strengthening feature, the seal-receiving notch extending to the geometric mechanical strengthening feature, and wherein at least a portion of the crack compliant seal is positioned within the seal-receiving notch and contacts the geometric mechanical strengthening feature(Figures 5a-c shows the seal 15 in the notch and in contact with the threads).
However, Wasa Tverlid fails to disclose explicitly the crack compliant seal having a compliant seal hardness value (HVcs) less than or equal to one or more of the first member hardness value (HV1) or second member hardness value (HV2).
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 made it such that the seal 15 of Wasa Tverlid such that it had a hardness value (HVcs) less than or equal to one or more of the first member hardness value (HV1) and second member hardness value (HV2), as "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (higher, lower or equal), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 8 and 23: Wasa Tverlid discloses wherein the geometric mechanical strengthening feature is a first set of threads in the first member inside diameter (ID1) and a second set of threads in the second member outside diameter (OD2) forming an overlapping joint.(Figures 5a-c)
Regarding claims 9 and 24: Wasa Tverlid discloses wherein the crack compliant material is located within an axial extending portion of the overlapping joint. (Figures 5a-c)
Regarding claims 10 and 25: Wasa Tverlid discloses wherein the crack compliant material 15 is located between the first set of threads and the second set of threads.(Figure 6, the seal 15 is between different sets of threads on the different members)
Regarding claim 40: Wasa Tverlid discloses 40. (Original) The method as recited in Claim 31, wherein the mechanical strengthening feature is a first set of threads 11 in the first member10’ inside diameter (ID1) and a second set of threads in the second member10” outside diameter (0D2) forming an overlapping joint.(Fig 5a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7,11,13-14, 21-22,26,28-29, and 37-39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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