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 status
Applicant’s amendment filed 8/20/2021 has been received and entered. Claim 1 has been cancelled and claims 2-21 have been added.
Claims 2-21 are pending and currently under examination.
Priority
This application filed 4/30/2021 is a continuation of 14/585078 filed 12/29/2014, now US Patent 11,028449, which claims benefit to provisional application 61/944,961 filed 2/26/2014 and to provisional application 61/922,734 filed 12/31/2013; and
through claim to provisional applications and common inventorship is related to US application 14/586,865 filed 12/30/2014 now US Patent 11,047232 (as a CIP of 14/585078), and where ‘865 is the parent as continuation of 15/087,552 filed 3/31/2016, now US Patent 9,771795, which is parent to 15/641965 filed 7/26/2017 now US Patent 10767476, which is parent to US application 16/943631 filed 7/30/2023, now US Patent 11,629593;
additionally US application 14/586,865 filed 12/30/2014 now US Patent 11,047232 is the parent as continuation of 17/332547 filed 5/27/2021 (not docketed);
additionally US application 14/586,865 filed 12/30/2014 now US Patent 11,047232 is the parent as continuation of 15/087,497 filed 3/31/2016, now US Patent 10,975691, which is parent to US application 17/196480 filed 3/9/2021 (non-final office action mailed 9/8/2025);
and to PCT/US14/72880 filed 12/30/2014 and related to PCT/US14/72607 filed 12/29/2014.
Information Disclosure Statement
The three information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/29/2021 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
In review of the citations, several of the cited references are Office actions some are from foreign offices. It is noted that for review of these, the pending claims that were reviewed in these actions were not provided, but for completeness and clarity of the record the cited references when provided in this prosecution were not considered in light of the instant claims. The foreign statutes and comments of the reviewers were not clearly in context of the pending claims and were not considered for their logic nor factual accuracy of comments in actions from other foreign offices.
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) are those provided by claims 2-11 directed to a system which comprise one or more computers to assess and provide data to direct an industrial activity. Specifically, it is noted that the claim recites one or more computers, and in light of the guidance of the specification and evidence of record these appear to encompass any generic computer capable of processing information and does not appear to provide any specialized system or computer, nor one that necessarily results in improved recoverability.
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.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10975691, 11047232, 9771795, 10767476 abd 11629593. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the methods and systems require and encompass the data and information present on a computer or general system to implement. Further, it is noted that each of the patents cited are related as continuations to parent application 14/586865, US Patent 11047232.
Claims 2-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-21 of copending Application No. 17/196480 (docketed), 17/332547 (not docketed). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the system and method of ‘547 appear to provide for the information of the present system and method and if practiced on a computer would have the information stored on a computer/system as presently claimed. For example, claim 19 of ‘547 directed to the method requires assessing microbiome data then generating instructions for recovery focused on fracturing using chemical additives which are broadly encompassed by the present claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
201
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claim analysis
Independent claim 12 provides for a method which is generally directed to obtaining material representing one or more samples from an operation/site/well and identifying fluid origin and flow based on microbiome information related to waste management. More specifically, the claim requires obtaining samples at an operation, and no dependent claims specifically provides what the source is but in light of the specification it can be a site of a well where ‘interrelationships’ would want to be analyzed but essentially is any site source one might want to assess or could have been associated with some form of ‘waste management’; the with the genetic data received/generated, using a computer processor analyzing the genetic material by sequencing the material represented in the data for possible microorganisms that might be present; obtaining microbiome information and evaluating by ‘distilling’ and based on the specification using statistical methods or bioinformatics processing the microbiome information to associate it with origin and flow as represented in a ‘construct of n-dimensional space information. Claim 2 is directed to a system which is directed to a ‘computer having one or more processors’ for performing the steps required of the method. The dependent claims for both series of claims provide for details for the analysis steps such transforming n-dimensional space information using on or more math functions and using multivariate statistical techniques to provide for the data to be displayed as a phylogenetic tree if the sample data provides for such.
The specification provides for specific steps to use machine learning and that a ‘predictive model’ can be generated and then selected ‘based on an expected prediction error associated with the predictive machine-learned model’ where the ‘accuracy of the expected prediction error for the predictive machine-learned model having been improved through a number of repeated tests of the expected predictive accuracy’ using derived microbiome data. A search of the specification provides support for feature selection at [00407] teaching:
‘The goal of feature selection will be to find the combination of the model parameters and the feature subset that provides the lowest expected error on novel input data. Feature selection will be of utmost importance in the realm of microbiome classification due to the generally large number of features(i.e., constituent species-level taxa, or transcripts, or metabol some combination of these): in addition to improving predictive accuracy, reducing the number of features leads to the production of more interpretable models. Approaches to feature selection are typically divided into three categories: filter methods, wrapper methods, and embedded methods.’
and supports generally for feature selection not the model itself. At [00411]-[00412] it is taught that:
‘Wrapper methods are usually the most computationally intensive and perhaps the least elegant of the feature selection methods. A wrapper method, like a filter method, will treat the classifier as a black box, but instead of using a simple univariate or multivariate test to determine which features are important, a wrapper will use the classifier itself to evaluate subsets of features. This leads to a computationally intensive search: an ideal wrapper will retrain the classifier for all feature subsets, and will choose the one with the lowest validation error. Were this search tractable, wrappers would be superior to117 19856.0005 (Biota B2a)filters because they would be able to find the optimal combination of features and classifier parameters. The search will not be tractable for high-dimensional data sets; hence, the wrapper will use heuristics during the search to find the optimal feature subset. The use of a heuristic will limit the wrapper's ability to interact with the classifier for two reasons: the inherent lack of optimality of the search heuristic, and the compounded lack of optimality in cases where the wrapper's optimal feature set differs from that of the classifier. In many cases the main benefit of using wrappers instead of filters, namely that the wrapper can interact with the underlying classifier, is shared by embedded methods, and the additional computational cost incurred by wrappers therefore makes such methods unattractive.
[00412] Embedded approaches to feature selection will perform an integrated search over the joint space of model parameters and feature subsets so that feature selection becomes an integral part of the learning process. Embedded feature selection will have the advantage over filters that it has the opportunity to search for the globally optimal parameter-feature combination. This is because feature selection will be performed with knowledge of the parameter selection process, whereas filter and wrapper methods treat the classifier as a "black box." As discussed above, performing the search over the whole joint parameter-feature space is generally intractable, but embedded methods will use knowledge of the classifier structure to inform the search process, while in the other methods the classifier must be built from scratch for every feature set.’
The system is a computer and the method appears to be practice using a computer, and the pending claims provide for obtaining data where the steps of obtaining materials from an oil field and extracting genetic material for further analysis in the machine learning models that would be chosen as part of the method. More broadly, the claims are directed to analyzing a material from a location of an industrial operation by obtaining microbiome information and evaluating the microbiome information to evaluate on how to proceed at well location.
For step 1 of the 101 analysis, the claims are found to be directed to a statutory category of a process and a product.
For step 2A of the 101 analysis, the judicial exception of the claim are the steps of obtaining information and performing an evaluation. In review of the specification and the claims as amended, the steps of ‘statistical analysis’ and/or ‘performing bioinformatics’ are broadly set forth and considered broad abstract instructional steps of analyzing sequence data of different samples. The specification provides only general guidance for how the sequences are to be analyzed or correlated to provide an outcome that can be used, but does not define or require any new or specific means of performing bioinformatics or making the evaluation of the data obtained. Further, it does not provide any specificity to what the sequences would be and how they are to be used to direct any further information about the site or well, and appear to rely completely on the art to support and enable. The judicial exception of the claim falls into the category of Mental Processes as they are drawn to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). In this case, in review of the specification, the claims appear to broadly and prophetically require that data obtained be correlated to specificity of the function about the operation site, such as a waste management site or clearing at well site. With respect to the data that might be received and n-dimensional space the plain reading is that it consists of points that have N components, for example, (0,0) is the origin in 2-dimensional space, (0,0,0) is the origin in 3-dimensional space, and as such provides information about the source for example location and/or time the sample was obtained. The breadth of “generating”, “identifying”, and “computationally distilling” encompasses non-transformative assessment of the data; for example assessing similarity of sequences to be the same or different microbes, then providing a table with the relevant data about each of the samples. This breadth does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim scope, such that all others are not precluded from using the natural principle of describing what organisms were detected at a site based on sequence information. Although the claims recite “communicating’, the courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; for example, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). The required steps are very generally recited, the combination of is together reasonably interpreted as mere data gathering, analysis and display. Computing, constructing datasets and using statistical models was well understood, conventional, and routinely performed in the art at the time the application was filed. Furthermore, the limitations related to genotyping for a plurality of markers or alleles does not change the steps to be performed. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) for a discussion on adding insignificant extra-solution (both pre-solution and post-solution) activity to the judicial exception. See also MPEP § 2106.05(h) for a discussion on generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims appear to fall into the category of Mathematical Concepts, as it applies the use of statistics and mathematical relationships in analyzing probabilities, and also into the category of mental processes, as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because there is no apparent complexity to or amount of data that is collected and analyzed as presently claimed.
Recent guidance requires that a second prong process for step 2 of the 101 analysis. Prong two requires the analysis as to whether the judicial exception is practically applied to the additional elements. In this case, the additional elements broadly and simply require obtaining a sample at a site and sequencing genetic material that might be present which was well known at the time (see Magot et al. for example) and the broad judicial exception to analyze it does not appear to be a practical application given the guidance. The steps and ability of a system to display the resulting analysis appear to be only instructions, such as a monitor which is comprised by a ‘human machine interface’ comprised by the claims.
For step 2B of the 101 analysis, the steps for obtaining and analyzing material are considered a physical step required of the claims and an additional element under the 101 analysis. This step is broadly set forth and in review of the guidance of specification provides for methodology well known and used to obtain information about a microbiome/bacteria (such as sequencing RNA). Given the breadth of the claims and guidance of the specification, the step of analyzing is considered a conventional step of obtaining information for further analysis. The amendment to the claims to use a processor and the final step to display to an interface appears to be a means to simply process and set forth information from the analysis and does not add significantly more. As broadly set forth in the claim and in review of the guidance of the specification, these two steps provide for obtaining and assessing any form of data about the microbiome. Dependent claims set forth genetic material such as RNA, however this was a well-known means for assessing variants in bacteria, and the claims/specification relies on the art to fully describe and enable the use of such limitations required of the claim. It is noted that dependent claims set forth that the information is genetic material, the source of the material and how it is obtained; and that the information that is obtained represents derived and predictive information, and what the genetic information represents within the genome. In review of these limitations alone and in combination of the additional elements, neither appear to provide for significantly more to make the claims patent eligible.
One way to overcome a rejection for non-patent-eligible subject matter is to persuasively argue that the claimed subject matter is not directed to a judicial exception. Another way for the applicants to overcome the rejection is to persuasively argue that the claims contain elements in addition to the judicial exception that either individually or as an ordered combination are not well understood, routine, or conventional. Another way for the applicants to overcome the rejection is to persuasively argue that the claims as a whole result in an improvement to a technology. Persuasive evidence for an improvement to a technology could be a comparison of results of the claimed subject matter with results of the prior art, or arguments based on scientific reasoning that the claimed subject matter inherently results an improvement over the prior art. The applicants should show why the claims require the improvement in all embodiments.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viegas et al. (2020), Zhang et al and Davis et al. (2011).
The method of claim 12 provides is directed to obtaining material representing one or more samples from a waste operation or site and identifying fluid origin and flow based on microbiome information related to waste management. The steps of claim 12 requires obtaining samples at an operation, and no dependent claims specifically provides what the source is but as implied by the claims samples containing genetic material for a ‘microbiome’ information which is used n-dimensional space information, and in light of the specification a site or sample source for essentially any site source one might want to assess or could have been associated with some form of ‘waste management’. Viegas et al. provide a review and teach the effects of waste sorting in environmental microbiome. Providing an overview of multiple citations, Viegas et al. teach waste handling and sorting generate bioaerosols potentially harmful for human health. Further, it is taught that monitoring through the use of high-throughput sequencing has been reported in bioaerosol characterization studies performed in different occupational environments such as composting facilities, wastewater treatment plants, swine, waste-sorting units and dairy farms. Viegas et al. teach a variety of sources can be monitored and provide a specific study aimed to characterize the biodiversity of a challenging occupational environment, the waste-sorting industry, and to assess the elicited biological responses in vitro to recognize the possible health effects of waste industry workers. Viegas et al. provide for sample extraction, genomic analysis of bacterial and fungal DNA that might be present and statistical analysis of what was observed. Viegas et al porivde a variety of possible occupational situations, but focus their study on air conditioning filters. However, like Viegas et al. Zhang et al provide a study of another possible site location for the he potential applications of microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR) techniques, resulting in an increased interest in knowledge of microbial communities in subsurface oil reservoirs. Zhang et al teach that ‘Most studies of microbial communities in oil reservoirs have for practical and economic reasons normally been carried out on samples obtained from the oil well production heads, and most of oil reservoirs under study are subjected to water-flooding.’ More specifically, Zhang et al perform methods and use a system to provide analysis of microbial diversity assessment based on 16S rRNA gene clone library technique has yielded amazing insights into the community composition in a variety of environments. In experiments comparing microbial communities in samples of injection and production wells from different oil reservoirs with different in situ temperatures, microbial communities detected in samples of produced waters were also analyzed. The system and studies provide both the information and knowledge of microbial ecosystem in oil reservoirs subjected to water-flooding and more importantly provide a significant referencing value for the performance of microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR) in theses oil fields for directing activities at a well site. At the time detailed guidance for other materials were also known for example, Davis et al is provided as evidence of practices of CO2 flooding used in the recovery process in the Texas Gulf coast oil fields.
Given the breadth of the claims to broadly provide systems and methods that use the information about the microbiome to assess and direct recovery, and more specifically the use knowledge of oil fields and use known conventional means of recovery, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide any known flooding technology, such as that of CO2 flooding used in the oil fields of Texas. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use known and effective recovery techniques based on the available information about the fields which can be in part provided by the microbiome present as demonstrated by Zhang et al. Given the information about microbiome in field assessment was known and recovery methods were known and effective, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the results of both Zhang et al and Davis et al. to provide an assessment of an oil field and then apply known recovery techniques.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
In review of the art, additional references are provided as evidence of the level of skill and techniques that were known prior to the earliest effective filing date of the instant claims.
Anderson et al. (US 2012/0165215), Quay (US 2013/0121968), Finegold (US 2012/0252775), Cano et al. (US Patent 5593883) and Mu et al. (US 2012/0214713)(all of record) provide evidence that several of the steps of obtaining samples and genetic analysis comprised by the claims were known. While at the effective filing date methods to analyze microbiome information in industrial applications were known and used to direct operations. Kohr et al. (US 2011/0067856) discloses microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR); Gates et al. (US 2011/0250582) discloses a method and system for production of biogenerated gas from a zone in a reservoir. This is used for microbial conversion of petroleum in the zone to biogenerated gas is stimulated; and Regberg et al. (US 2014/0378319) discloses a method to determine location, size and in situ conditions in hydrocarbon reservoir with ecology, geochemistry, and biomarkers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph T Woitach whose telephone number is (571)272-0739. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8:00-4:00.
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, Karlheinz R Skowronek can be reached at 571 272-9047. 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.
/Joseph Woitach/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687