DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first office action on the merits. All currently pending claims have been considered below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been filed in the present case. If applicable, the Examiner respectfully notes Applicant's duty to submit to the Office information which is material to patentability, as per MPEP §609, and the time limits for such a filing set forth under 37 CFR 1.97.
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 following features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Claim 16 recites "the opening is included in an uphole series of radial directed openings in the uphole end of the tubular body or in a downhole series of radially directed openings in the uphole end of the tubular body" (emphasis added).
Applicant's use of "or" clearly recites the claim as an alternative selection between two different arrangements of "openings". However, the drawings only show one arrangement. In other words, if the drawings show "an uphole series of radial directed openings" they can not, by definition, show an alternative arrangement. As discussed in the 112(b) rejections below, this is perhaps Applicant just redundantly reciting the same feature with differing phrasing. In such a case, the drawings may then show all the claimed features, but the limitation is indefinite as discussed below.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4-7 & 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claims 4 & 12 recite "the radial directed opening". However parent claims 1 / 8 recite "a plurality of radial directed openings", thus making it unclear if claims 4 and 12 are requiring a new feature, is only referencing one of the plurality, or is a typographical error. Claim 5 depends from claim 4. Claim 13 depends from claim 12
Claims 6 & 14 recite "the downhole separator includes multiple radial directed openings" with no apparently association or relationship with the "plurality of radial directed openings" already recited in parent claims 1 & 8. It is unclear how or if the newly required "multiple radial directed openings" differ from the "plurality of radial directed openings" in parent claim 1. Claim 7 depends from claim 6. Claim 15 depends from claim 14.
Claim 16 recites "the opening" which is indefinite as similarly described for claims 4 & 12 above. Claim 16 further recites "an uphole series of radial directed openings in the uphole end of the tubular body or in a downhole series of radial directed openings in the uphole end of the tubular body". Applicant's use of "or" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if both "series" are actually required. In other words, if "the opening" is "in an uphole series of radial directed openings", does the claim still require "a downhole series of radial directed opening"? Claim 17 depends from claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by US 3,289,608 (Laval).
Independent claim 1. Laval discloses a downhole separator (title) for separating a three-phase fluid (intended use, not a structural limitation of the separator and not a method claim) produced in an oil or gas well (intended use, not a structural limitation of the separator and not a method claim), the downhole separator comprising:
a tubular body ("a cylindrical chamber 110 having a side wall 111" - fig 12 & the last full ¶ of col 6);
a plurality of radial directed openings ("a series of slots 116" - fig 12 & the last full ¶ of col 6) disposed in and about a circumference of an uphole end of the tubular body (clearly shown in fig 12 as being about the circumference) for allowing the three-phase fluid to enter the downhole separator (Intended use. Three phase fluid is clearly capable of entering via slots 112 in the same manner as in the present case. Separating sand is expressly taught - first ¶ of col 1 - and therefore liquid and gas are also clearly capable of entering via 112) while also permitting a gas component of the three-phase fluid to exit the downhole separator (the series of slots 116 are capable of letting gas escape in the exact same manner as the present case, at least at the level of generality presently recited), at least two of the radial directed openings disposed on opposing halves of the uphole end of the tubular body (clearly shown in fig 12);
a dip tube disposed inside the tubular body ("discharge conduit 123" - ¶ bridging cols 6 & 7) for delivering a primarily liquid component of the three-phase fluid to be processed (intended use, not a structural limitation of the separator and not a method claim), the downhole separator free of axially disposed tubing between the dip tube and the tubular body (none are shown in the embodiment of fig 12); and
a first annulus area disposed between the dip tube and the tubular body (an annulus between 123 & 110 is clearly shown in fig 12).
3. The downhole separator of claim 1 wherein the tubular body (fig 12) is comprised of a body portion ("side wall 111") and an upper jacket ("a dome-shaped annular barrier 121 having an outlet 122 concentric thereof into which a discharge conduit 123 is extended in fluid tight engagement" - ¶ bridging cols 6 & 7).
6. The downhole separator of claim 1 wherein the downhole separator includes multiple radial directed openings ("a series of slots 116" - fig 12 & the last full ¶ of col 6) and the openings are included in an uphole series of radial directed openings in the uphole end of the tubular body (upper circumferential set / series of 116, clearly shown in fig 12) and in a downhole series of radial directed openings in the uphole end of the tubular body (lower circumferential set / series of 116).
7. The downhole separator of claim 6 wherein the uphole series of radial directed openings are in generally a first plane (the upper series of 116 are in one horizonal plane) and the downhole series of openings are in generally a second plane (the lower series of 116 are in a second, different horizontal plane).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,289,608 (Laval) in view of US 2022/0381129 (Ellithorp).
Claim 2. Laval discloses all the limitations of the parent claim but does not expressly disclose those of the present. However Ellithorp discloses a downhole gravity / density fluid separator (abstract, ¶ 4) with an inner dip tube (48, fig 1) forming an annulus (54) between the dip tube and the housing (20) with a shroud (50) disposed on the downhole end of the dip tube (fig 1) that is wider than the dip tube (ibid).
Therefore it would have been obvious to PHOSITA at the time of filing to use the shroud taught by Ellithorp on the downhole end of the dip tube taught by Laval. The shroud's helical section 62 imparts a spiral flow to the downwardly flowing fluids where "centrifugal forces urge dense solid particles including sand and the like to flow along an outer boundary surface of the helical flow path. Upon exiting the bottom of the helical flow path, the denser sand particles tend to settle by gravity along the outer boundary surface of the housing assembly and the sand collection below while the lighter gasses and liquids nearer to the inner tubular are more likely to be drawn upwardly through the inner passage of the inner tubular" (¶ 69 of Ellithorp).
Claims 4, 8, 9 11, 12, & 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,289,608 (Laval) in view of US 2,429,043 (Barnhart).
Claim 4. Laval discloses all the limitations of the parent claim but does not expressly disclose those of the present. However Barnhart discloses a multiphase production fluid separator (title; second ¶ of col 1) with a tubular body housing ("Figs. 1 and 2 show the housing 3 as being made up of a longitudinal section 5 having a bull plug 6 releasably connected on the lower end thereof" - col 3:20-23) comprising radially directed inlets at the upper end (openings 9 & 11, fig 1), the tubular body comprising a body portion ("bull plug 6") and an upper jacket (upper section of "3" that has openings 9 & 11 therein: figs 1 & 2), wherein the radial directed opening[s are] in a sidewall of the upper jacket (as defined / mapped above).
Therefore it would have been obvious to PHOSITA at the time of filing to use the multi-section housing taught by Barnhart in place of the unitary housing taught by McCoy. This allows for the bottom section to be disconnected to empty any sand collected therein (col 3:34-37).
Independent claim 8. Laval disclose a method of separating components of a multiphase fluid produced in a wellbore (first ¶ of col 1) comprising:
pumping (second & third ¶s of col 1) the multi-phase fluid into a downhole separator (ibid) to separate the multi-phase fluid into the separate components (col 1:54-61), the downhole separator comprises:
a tubular body ("a cylindrical chamber 110 having a side wall 111" - fig 12 & the last full ¶ of col 6);
a plurality of radial directed openings ("a series of slots 116" - fig 12 & the last full ¶ of col 6) disposed in and about a circumference of an uphole end of the tubular body (clearly shown in fig 12 as being about the circumference) for allowing the multi-phase fluid to enter the downhole separator (first ¶ of col 1) while also permitting a gas component of the three-phase fluid to exit the downhole separator (The series of slots 116 are capable of letting gas escape in the exact same manner as the present case, at least at the level of generality presently recited. That said, for the purposes of a method, this is addressed by the 103 modification below), at least two of the radial directed openings disposed on opposing halves of the uphole end of the tubular body (clearly shown in fig 12);
a dip tube disposed inside the tubular body ("discharge conduit 123" - ¶ bridging cols 6 & 7) for delivering a primarily liquid component of the multi-phase fluid to be processed (col 1:54-61), the downhole separator free of axially disposed tubing between the dip tube and the tubular body (none are shown in the embodiment of fig 12); and
a first annulus area disposed between the dip tube and the tubular body (an annulus between 123 & 110 is clearly shown in fig 12).
Laval discloses use in a water well, and separating solids from the water (col 1), and does not explicitly disclose three-phase separation or use in an oil and gas well. However Barnhart teaches an analogous downhole separation tool (as described above and readily apparent from fig 1) that is used in an oil and gas well (second ¶ of col 1) to separate solids, gases, and hydrocarbons (third ¶ of col 1) for subsequent production via pumping (second ¶ of col 1) where the three phase fluid enters through a plurality of radially directed opening (openings 9 & 11, fig 1; "flow of material from the formation passes thru these openings 9 into the housing 3 that some of the gas will move upwardly in the area 11' and escape thru the openings 11 into the casing of the well" - second to last full ¶ of col 3) while also permitting a gas component of the three-phase fluid to exit the downhole separator (ibid).
Therefore it would have been obvious to PHOSITA at the time of filing to use the separator of Laval in a three phase hydrocarbon production well as taught by Barnhart with a reasonable expectation of success. Barnhart clearly shows that such structure would be art recognized appropriate for a three phase production fluid, and the goal of Laval - separation of components so as to not damage the pump (second ¶ of col 1) - is identic al to that of Barnhart (third ¶ of col 1).
9. The combination discloses all the limitations of the parent claim, and while Barnhart discloses that the flow velocity is intentionally slowed within the separator ("The present invention operates upon the principle that if the velocity of flow is progressively reduced to a minimum while traveling vertically downward, separation of the gas, liquids, and solids will occur, due to the distinct differences in relative specific gravity…" - col 1:13-23), a specific velocity of "less than 0.5 feet per second" is not explicitly taught.
However, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to reduce the velocity to "less than 0.5 feet per second through a part of the downhole separator", since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art ("…reduce the velocity of flow progressively step by step to a minimum…" - col 1:32-41), discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has bene held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215. Further, the teaching of "to a minimum" is clearly suggestive of a low as reasonably possible velocity.
11. The method of claim 8 wherein the tubular body (fig 12 of Laval) is comprised of a body portion ("side wall 111") and an upper jacket ("a dome-shaped annular barrier 121 having an outlet 122 concentric thereof into which a discharge conduit 123 is extended in fluid tight engagement" - ¶ bridging cols 6 & 7).
12. The combination discloses all the limitations of the parent claim but, as-modified above, does not expressly disclose those of the present. However Barnhart further discloses a multiphase production fluid separator (title; second ¶ of col 1) with a tubular body housing ("Figs. 1 and 2 show the housing 3 as being made up of a longitudinal section 5 having a bull plug 6 releasably connected on the lower end thereof" - col 3:20-23) comprising radially directed inlets at the upper end (openings 9 & 11, fig 1), the tubular body comprising a body portion ("bull plug 6") and an upper jacket (upper section of "3" that has openings 9 & 11 therein: figs 1 & 2), wherein the radial directed opening[s are] in a sidewall of the upper jacket (as defined / mapped above).
Therefore it would have been obvious to PHOSITA at the time of filing to use the multi-section housing taught by Barnhart in place of the unitary housing taught by McCoy. This allows for the bottom section to be disconnected to empty any sand collected therein (col 3:34-37).
Claims 14 & 16. The method of claim 8 / 12 wherein the downhole separator includes multiple radial directed openings (Laval: "a series of slots 116" - fig 12 & the last full ¶ of col 6) and the openings are included in an uphole series of radial directed openings in the uphole end of the tubular body (upper circumferential set / series of 116, clearly shown in fig 12) and in a downhole series of radial directed openings in the uphole end of the tubular body (lower circumferential set / series of 116).
Claims 15 & 17. The method of claim 14 / 16 wherein the uphole series of radial directed openings are in generally a first plane (the upper series of 116 are in one horizonal plane) and the downhole series of openings are in generally a second plane (the lower series of 116 are in a second, different horizontal plane).
Claim 5 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US 3,289,608 (Laval) & US 2,429,043 (Barnhart), in further view of US 2,440,651 (Bell).
Claims 5 & 13. The combination discloses all the limitations of the parent claims and further discloses a sidewall of the upper jacket (Barnhart: "upper section 1" and "coupling 8" together which connects 1 to "section 5" - col 3:20-26 & fig 2) and a sidewall of the body portion (lower "section 5" - ibid) but does not clearly disclose that a sidewall of the upper jacket is thicker than the sidewall of the body portion. That said, "coupling 8… may be a flush joint threaded connection" (col 3:20-26).
Bell discloses a flush joint threaded connection (figs 1 & 2; col 2:19-23) wherein the sidewall of the connector / coupling (11, fig 2; analogous to "coupling 8" of Barnhart which is drawn to part of the "upper jacket" above) is thicker than a sidewall of the tubing below it to which it is coupled (10; thickness difference clearly conveyed by fig 2; analogous to lower "section 5" of Barnhart which is drawn to the "body portion").
Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the flush joint taught by Bell as the flush joint taught by Barnhart. This allows the operator to use refurbished drillpipe while still providing the required flush joint taught by Barnhart (col 2:13-23 of Bell), which saves material costs and re-purposes otherwise worn equipment.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US 3,289,608 (Laval) & US 2,429,043 (Barnhart), in further view of US 2022/0381129 (Ellithorp).
Claim 10. The combination discloses all the limitations of the parent claim but does not expressly disclose those of the present. However Ellithorp discloses a downhole gravity / density fluid separator (abstract, ¶ 4) with an inner dip tube (48, fig 1) forming an annulus (54) between the dip tube and the housing (20) with a shroud (50) disposed on the downhole end of the dip tube (fig 1) that is wider than the dip tube (ibid).
Therefore it would have been obvious to PHOSITA at the time of filing to use the shroud taught by Ellithorp on the downhole end of the dip tube taught by Laval. The shroud's helical section 62 imparts a spiral flow to the downwardly flowing fluids where "centrifugal forces urge dense solid particles including sand and the like to flow along an outer boundary surface of the helical flow path. Upon exiting the bottom of the helical flow path, the denser sand particles tend to settle by gravity along the outer boundary surface of the housing assembly and the sand collection below while the lighter gasses and liquids nearer to the inner tubular are more likely to be drawn upwardly through the inner passage of the inner tubular" (¶ 69 of Ellithorp).
Claims 18 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US 3,289,608 (Laval) & US 2,429,043 (Barnhart), in further view of US 5,653,286 (McCoy).
Claim 18. The combination discloses all the limitations of the parent claims but Laval does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the openings. However, McCoy discloses a downhole separator (title, abstract) for separating a multi-phase fluid (title) produced in an oil or gas well (first ¶ of col 1), the downhole separator comprising:
a tubular body ("tubular body 80" - figs 2 & 4; col 4:19-24);
radial directed openings ("fluid inlets 86" - fig 2) in an uphole end of the tubular body (ibid) for allowing the multi-phase fluid to enter the downhole separator ("fluid inlets") while also permitting a gas component of the three-phase fluid to exit the downhole separator (Gas is capable of exiting via 86 upon the change of fluid flow direction, in the same manner of the present case. This is discussed in more detail below. Further, inlets 86 "permit a gas component" to exit via "gas vent hole 94"), the radial directed opening having side lengths larger than about .05 inches in any direction (3/4" by 3" - fig 4; 3" by 4" - figs 6-8; col 5:38-40);
a dip tube disposed inside the tubular body ("dip tube 90" - fig 2 & col 4:25-32) for delivering a primarily liquid component ("The bottom of the dip tube 90 is open for receiving liquid which is within the chamber 84." - ibid) of the multi-phase fluid to be processed ("A dip tube transfers the fluid from the separator chamber to the pump" - last sentence of the abstract), the downhole separator free of axially disposed tubing between the dip tube and the tubular body (the annular space - "interior chamber 84" - between dip tube 90 and tubular body 80 does not have axially disposed tubing therein: fig 2); and
a first annulus area disposed between the dip tube and the tubular body ("interior chamber 84" - col 4:20-21).
Therefore it would have been obvious to PHOSITA at the time of filing to make the openings taught by Laval at least 0.5 inches across in any direction as taught by McCoy (3/4" by 3" - fig 4; 3" by 4" - figs 6-8; col 5:38-40) with a reasonable expectation of success. The tools are clearly analogous, as cited above, McCoy teaches specific numerical values of the claims (ibid) as being known in such assemblies. Further, for actual construction, the artisan must inherently make a choice in dimensions - dimensions which are not taught by Laval - thus forcing the reader to look elsewhere for a more detailed teaching. McCoy teaches such dimensions.
Claim 19. The method of claim 18 wherein the opening is at least 1.25 inches across in any direction (McCoy: 3" by 4" - figs 6-8; col 5:38-40).
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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,410,697 (Crane). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are only broader than the issued claims. Under the same logic that a narrower species will always anticipate the broader genus (MPEP §2131.02, subsection I), claims which are only broader can not be held patentably distinct from claims which are only narrower.
Present independent claims 1 & 8 are only broader that issued claims 1 & 8, respectively, lacking the "radial directed openings being square shaped and has side lengths larger than about 1.25 inches" (emphasis on missing language). The other differences are merely grammatical: "opposing sides" in the issued claim versus "opposing halves" in the present, for example.
Present claims 2-7 & 9-15 are identical to issued claims 2-7 & 9-15, respectively.
Present claims 16 & 17 are the same as issued claims 14 & 15.
Present claim 18 recites "the opening is at least 0.5 inches across in any direction" which is still only broader than the issued claims' requirement of "larger than about 1.25 inches", quoted above.
Present claim 19 recites "the opening is at least 1.25 inches across in any direction", which is still only broader than the issued claims' requirement of "square shaped [and] larger than about 1.25 inches" as quoted above.
The examiner respectfully notes that MPEP §804, subsection I(B)1 states "As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application's claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only compliance with objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Replies with an omission should be treated as provided in MPEP §714.03."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Blake Michener whose telephone number is (571)270-5736. The examiner can normally be reached Approximately 9:00am to 6:00pm CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571.270.7741. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BLAKE MICHENER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676