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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
wherein a size or position of the one or more flow trim ports are configured to prevent the housing seal from eroding while providing at least a X pressure differential;
wherein the size or position of the one or more flow trim ports are configured to improve turbulence properties created as the subsurface fluids pass through the nearest most flow trim port to prevent the housing seal from eroding while providing at least the X pressure differential.
In the claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 8-9, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8-9, 18-19 include, or depend from claims that include, the limitation(s): “wherein a size or position of the one or more flow trim ports are configured to prevent the housing seal from eroding while providing at least a 1.5 KSI pressure differential” or similar limitations.
Claims 9, 19 include, or depend from claims that include, the limitation(s): “wherein the size or position of the one or more flow trim ports are configured to improve turbulence properties created as the subsurface fluids pass through the nearest most flow trim port to prevent the housing seal from eroding while providing at least the KSI pressure differential.” Or similar limitations.
These limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification as filed describes the limitations using language similar or identical to the claimed language with no additional language describing the structure of how the function is accomplished.
The claims contain exclusively intended use limitations and recite no further definite structural limitations than that in the parent claim(s). While intended use limitations in apparatus claim(s) are not indefinite per se, the examiner holds claim(s) 8-9, 18-19 to be indefinite by the following logic. A claim which contains only intended use limitations can modify the parent claim in one of two ways:
The first interpretation is that the intended use is inherent to the structural limitations of the parent claim; i.e. any apparatus which meets the structural limitations of the parent claim(s) inherently meets the limitations of the dependent claim(s) 8-9, 18-19. In such a case the dependent claim(s) 8-9, 18-19 do not further limit the parent claim(s), and is thus clearly improper under 112(d).
The second is that, because intended use limitations limit the claim to prior art which is capable of performing such intended use (regardless of whether or not it is explicitly taught or even desirable), such limitations add some further structural limitation to the parent claim; i.e. the limitations of dependent claim(s) 8-9, 18-19 provides some kind of structural limitation to the parent claim(s). But whatever that structural limitation might be, it is nebulous and indefinite because Applicant is defining the apparatus using non-structural intended use limitations. It is therefore impossible to determine what theoretical structural limitation is now required by dependent claim(s) 8-9, 18-19 that is not exclusively required by the parent claim(s), and claim(s) 8-9, 18-19 is/are thus improper under 112(b). In other words, if dependent claim(s) 8-9, 18-19 requires something structural not already required by the parent claim(s), it is impossible to determine what that structure definitely is.
Put yet another way, in Applicant's attempt to word the claim functionally, as opposed to clearly reciting the structure that allows the flow control valve to perform the intended use recited in claim(s) 8-9, 18-19, Applicant has rendered the structural requirements of claim(s) 8-9, 18-19, and how they further limit the "flow control valve" in the parent claim(s), unclear.
If the claims were issued as written, the determination of whether a hypothetical apparatus (Apparatus A) that meets all the structural limitations of the claim is considered an infringing device would change based on the environment where the tool is used and the fluid flowing through the tool. For example, if Apparatus A, when used with a fluid with a viscosity of 1 cp meets the limitations of the claim (e.g. X pressure differential, improve turbulence, decrease erosion, etc.) but Apparatus A does not meet the limitations of the claim when used with a fluid with a viscosity of 50 cp and no longer reading on the claims, without any structural change to Apparatus A.
Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs “when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty”). See MPEP 2173.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 9, 19 include, or depend from claims that include, the limitation(s): “wherein the size or position of the one or more flow trim ports are configured to improve turbulence properties created as the subsurface fluids pass through the nearest most flow trim port to prevent the housing seal from eroding while providing at least the KSI pressure differential.” Or similar limitations.
It is unclear what is required by the limitation “improve turbulence properties” It is unclear if an increase in turbulence or decrease in turbulence is considered an improvement in general or whether an increase or decrease is considered an improvement based on the composition of the fluid.
Clarification and/or correction are required. No new matter may be entered. The claims will be read and examined as best understood.
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, 5, 8-11, 15, 18-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 9-11, 15, 19-21 of copending Application No. 19/379604 in view of Carmody (US 6041857).
Claims 1, 5, 8-11, 15, 18-21 are fully encompassed by claims 1, 5, 9-11, 15, 19-21 of the copending with the exception of the position sensor.
Carmody teaches a flow control valve comprising a housing (Carmody comprising 35, 15) including a central bore (Carmody inside 15) extending axially there through, the central bore configured to convey subsurface fluids there through;
an opening (Carmody 13) located in a sidewall of the housing;
a sliding sleeve (Carmody not labeled in Fig. 1-6; near 11; 4:13-40) disposed in the central bore of the housing, the sliding sleeve configured to move between a first state covering (Carmody Fig. 3) the opening and engaging a housing seal and second state (Carmody Fig. 6) disengaging from the housing seal and exposing at least a portion of the one or more flow ports; and
a position sensor (Carmody 2:66-3:7) coupled with the sliding sleeve, the position sensor configured to determine a change in a resistance value as the sliding sleeve moves between the first state and the second state, the change in resistance value indicative of a position of the sliding sleeve in relation to the first state and the second state.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified the co-pending application to include a position sensor in order to provide an accurate representation of the degree of openness of the sliding sleeve. Carmody 2:66-3:7.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. See at least MPEP 804 I. B. Between Copending Applications—Provisional Rejections
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, 10-11, 15, 20-21 is/are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Mallawany (US 20180163521) in view of Carmody (US 6041857).
Regarding claim 1, El Mallawany teaches: A flow control valve, comprising:
a housing (El Mallawany comprising 202) including a central bore (El Mallawany near A/206) extending axially there through, the central bore configured to convey subsurface fluids there through;
an opening (El Mallawany near 204) located in a sidewall of the housing;
a flow trim (El Mallawany comprising 308) coupled with the housing and covering (El Mallawany Fig. 3A) the opening, the flow trim including one or more flow trim ports (El Mallawany 310) configured to (El Mallawany Fig. 3A/3B) allow the subsurface fluids to pass between the housing and a subterranean formation surrounding the housing;
a sliding sleeve (El Mallawany 304) disposed in the central bore of the housing, the sliding sleeve configured to move between a first state covering (El Mallawany Fig. 3A) the opening and engaging a housing seal and second state (El Mallawany Fig. 3B) disengaging from the housing seal and exposing at least a portion of the one or more flow ports; but does not expressly state:
a position sensor coupled with the sliding sleeve, the position sensor configured to determine a change in a resistance value as the sliding sleeve moves between the first state and the second state, the change in resistance value indicative of a position of the sliding sleeve in relation to the first state and the second state.
Carmody teaches a flow control valve comprising a sliding sleeve (Carmody not labeled in Fig. 1-6; near 11; 4:13-40) disposed in the central bore of the housing, the sliding sleeve configured to move between a first state covering (Carmody Fig. 3) the opening and second state (Carmody Fig. 6) exposing at least a portion of the one or more flow ports; and
a position sensor (Carmody 2:66-3:7) coupled with the sliding sleeve, the position sensor configured to determine a change in a resistance value as the sliding sleeve moves between the first state and the second state, the change in resistance value indicative of a position of the sliding sleeve in relation to the first state and the second state, and a controller (Carmody 5:44-54) configured to process and control the electrical motor for actuation of the sleeve
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified El Mallawany to include a position sensor and electrical actuator in order to provide an accurate representation of the degree of openness of the sliding sleeve. Carmody 2:66-3:7.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of El Mallawany and Carmody teaches: The flow control valve as recited in claim 1, further including an electric actuator (Carmody 5:44-54) coupled with the sliding sleeve, the electric actuator configured (Carmody 5:44-54) to move the sliding sleeve between the first state and the second state.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of El Mallawany and Carmody teaches: The flow control valve as recited in claim 1, wherein the housing seal is a metal-to-metal seal (El Mallawany [0026]).
Regarding claim 11, El Mallawany teaches: A method, comprising: positioning a downhole tool within a wellbore extending through one or more subterranean formations, the downhole tool having a flow control valve (El Mallawany comprising 202), including:
a housing (El Mallawany comprising 202) including a central bore (El Mallawany near A/206) extending axially there through, the central bore configured to convey subsurface fluids there through;
an opening (El Mallawany near 204) located in a sidewall of the housing;
a flow trim (El Mallawany comprising 308) coupled with the housing and covering (El Mallawany Fig. 3A) the opening, the flow trim including one or more flow trim ports (El Mallawany 310) configured to (El Mallawany Fig. 3A/3B) allow the subsurface fluids to pass between the housing and a subterranean formation surrounding the housing;
a sliding sleeve (El Mallawany 304) disposed in the central bore of the housing, the sliding sleeve configured to move between a first state covering (El Mallawany Fig. 3A) the opening and engaging a housing seal and second state (El Mallawany Fig. 3B) disengaging from the housing seal and exposing at least a portion of the one or more flow ports; but does not expressly state:
a position sensor coupled with the sliding sleeve, the position sensor configured to determine a change in a resistance value as the sliding sleeve moves between the first state and the second state, the change in resistance value indicative of a position of the sliding sleeve in relation to the first state and the second state.
Carmody teaches a flow control valve comprising a sliding sleeve (Carmody not labeled in Fig. 1-6; near 11; 4:13-40) disposed in the central bore of the housing, the sliding sleeve configured to move between a first state covering (Carmody Fig. 3) the opening and second state (Carmody Fig. 6) exposing at least a portion of the one or more flow ports; and
a position sensor (Carmody 2:66-3:7) coupled with the sliding sleeve, the position sensor configured to determine a change in a resistance value as the sliding sleeve moves between the first state and the second state, the change in resistance value indicative of a position of the sliding sleeve in relation to the first state and the second state, and a controller (Carmody 5:44-54) configured to process and control the electrical motor for actuation of the sleeve
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified El Mallawany to include a position sensor and electrical actuator in order to provide an accurate representation of the degree of openness of the sliding sleeve. Carmody 2:66-3:7.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of El Mallawany and Carmody teaches: The method as recited in claim 11, further including an electric actuator (Carmody 5:44-54) coupled with the sliding sleeve, the electric actuator configured (Carmody 5:44-54) to move the sliding sleeve between the first state and the second state.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of El Mallawany and Carmody teaches: The method as recited in claim 11, wherein the housing seal is a metal-to-metal seal (El Mallawany [0026]).
Regarding claim 21, El Mallawany teaches: A well system, comprising:
a wellbore (El Mallawany Fig. 1) extending through one or more subterranean formations; and a downhole tool (El Mallawany comprising 116/200) located within the wellbore, the downhole tool having a flow control valve including:
a housing (El Mallawany comprising 202) including a central bore (El Mallawany near A/206) extending axially there through, the central bore configured to convey subsurface fluids there through;
an opening (El Mallawany near 204) located in a sidewall of the housing;
a flow trim (El Mallawany comprising 308) coupled with the housing and covering (El Mallawany Fig. 3A) the opening, the flow trim including one or more flow trim ports (El Mallawany 310) configured to (El Mallawany Fig. 3A/3B) allow the subsurface fluids to pass between the housing and a subterranean formation surrounding the housing;
a sliding sleeve (El Mallawany 304) disposed in the central bore of the housing, the sliding sleeve configured to move between a first state covering (El Mallawany Fig. 3A) the opening and engaging a housing seal and second state (El Mallawany Fig. 3B) disengaging from the housing seal and exposing at least a portion of the one or more flow ports; but does not expressly state:
a position sensor coupled with the sliding sleeve, the position sensor configured to determine a change in a resistance value as the sliding sleeve moves between the first state and the second state, the change in resistance value indicative of a position of the sliding sleeve in relation to the first state and the second state.
Carmody teaches a flow control valve comprising a sliding sleeve (Carmody not labeled in Fig. 1-6; near 11; 4:13-40) disposed in the central bore of the housing, the sliding sleeve configured to move between a first state covering (Carmody Fig. 3) the opening and second state (Carmody Fig. 6) exposing at least a portion of the one or more flow ports; and
a position sensor (Carmody 2:66-3:7) coupled with the sliding sleeve, the position sensor configured to determine a change in a resistance value as the sliding sleeve moves between the first state and the second state, the change in resistance value indicative of a position of the sliding sleeve in relation to the first state and the second state, and a controller (Carmody 5:44-54) configured to process and control the electrical motor for actuation of the sleeve
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ), to have modified El Mallawany to include a position sensor and electrical actuator in order to provide an accurate representation of the degree of openness of the sliding sleeve. Carmody 2:66-3:7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 12-14, 16-17 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.
Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Schnatzmeyer (US 5957208) teaches a flow control valve comprising a sliding sleeve and flow trim.
Candiani (US 20240368966) teaches a flow control valve formed from high erosion resistant material, the valve comprising a flow trim, housing, and sliding sleeve.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Carroll whose telephone number is (571)272-4808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 2:00-10:00 PM EDT.
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.
/David Carroll/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights