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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 have been examined and rejected.
Response to Arguments
The objection of claim 5 has been withdrawn in light of amendment to claim 5.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 14 has been withdrawn in light of amendment to claim 14.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-20, see pp. 7-12, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues, see p. 11 last paragraph, that amended limitation “constructing a mud background comprising the plurality of mud layers” is not insignificant nor extra-solution activity but provides a technical solution to a technical problem by providing a mud background for automatically constructing a model used for hydrocarbon management. The Applicant also says that the constructing step cannot be done in human mind. In response, the Examiner determines that this limitation is a mental process that can be done by pen and paper because a person, after “accessing an indication of a plurality of mud layers in the subsurface” in previous step, can construct “a mud background “by drawing using pen and paper. The claim does not state “automatically construction a model” as argued.
The Applicant, furthermore, argues that limitation “producing an image of the subsurface region for use in hydrocarbon production” cannot be performed in the human mind, see p. 12 ¶ 1-2. The Examiner determines this step to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of post-solution activity of output data, MPEP 2106.5(g).
Claim 1, hence, remains rejected under 35 USC 101. Claims 2-20 depend on claim 1 and do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1, so they also remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Applicant’s arguments for rejections under 35 USC 103 is moot since the amended claims are now rejected using a new ground of rejection, necessitated by amendments.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to abstract ideas.
Claim 1 is a method claim and recites:
A method of providing an image of a subsurface region using the conditioning of surface-based geologic models of a subsurface, the method comprising:
accessing an indication of a plurality of mud layers in the subsurface; (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2016.05(g))
constructing a mud background comprising the plurality of mud layers; (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
conditioning, using the indication of the plurality of mud layers making up the mud background, by emplacing at least one geologic body on the mud background; and (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
building a model based on the conditioning; and (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
producing an image of the subsurface region for use in hydrocarbon production. (insignificant extra-solution activity, output data, MPEP 2106.5(g))
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim recites a limitation determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as indicated above. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 2 is a method claim depending on claim 1 and recites a limitation that further restricts a limitation in claim 1 determined to be metal processes that can be done by pen and paper. The claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 3 is a method claim depending on claim 1 and recites a limitation that further restricts a limitation in claim 1 determined to be metal processes that can be done by pen and paper. The claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 4 is a method claim depending on claim 1 and recites a limitation that further restricts a limitation in claim 1 determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 5 is a method claim depending on claim 4 and recites a limitation that further restricts a limitation in claim 1 determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 6 is a method claim depending on claim 4 and recites a limitation that further restricts a limitation in claim 1 determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 7 is a method claim depending on claim 1 and recites a limitation that further restricts a limitation in claim 1 determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 8 is a method claim depending on claim 1 and recites a limitation that further restricts a limitation in claim 1 determined to be metal processes that can be done by pen and paper. The claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 9 is a method claim depending on claim 8 and recites:
The method of claim 8, wherein sequentially conditioning comprises: realizing one or more elements for emplacing on a respective layer:
determining whether there is convergence for the emplaced one or more realized elements for the respective mud layer; and (mental processes)
responsive to determining that there is convergence for the emplaced one or more realized elements for the respective mud layer, iterating to a next respective mud layer for sequential conditioning. (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 10 is a method claim depending on claim 9 and recites a limitation that further restricts a limitation in claim 9 determined to be metal processes that can be done by pen and paper. The claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 11 is a method claim depending on claim 9 and recites a limitation that further restricts a limitation in claim 9 determined to be metal processes that can be done by pen and paper. The claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 12 is a method claim depending on claim 9 and recites:
The method of claim 9, wherein realizing the one or more elements comprises:
using a template definition in order to specify values of a functional form indicative of the geologic body, thereby generating a plurality of candidate elements for emplacing; and (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2016.05(g))
using a position definition in order to place the plurality of candidate elements. (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim recites a limitation determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as indicated above. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 13 is a method claim depending on claim 12 and recites a limitation that further restricts a limitation in claim 12 determined to be metal processes that can be done by pen and paper. The claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 14 is a method claim depending on claim 13 and recites:
The method of claim 12, wherein the centerline definition comprises using a centerline generator in order to automatically generate the centerlines for the plurality of candidate elements, the centerline generator using a specification of start or finish lines, a specification of fairways, target points for intersection, or drawing or repulsing centerlines for areas on a map (mental processes).
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: The claim recites an additional element of a centerline generator at generic level that does not amount significantly to abstract ideas.
Claim 15 is a method claim depending on claim 9 and recites:
The method of claim 9, wherein realizing the one or more elements for emplacing on a respective layer further comprises:
assessing the plurality of candidate elements with a cost function in order to generate an indication of realization of the plurality of candidates with at least one of wireline data, seismic data, or desired target fraction; and (math concepts)
determining whether the emplace the plurality of candidate elements based on the assessment of the plurality of candidate elements. (mental processes)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 16 is a method claim depending on claim 15 and recites a limitation that further restricts a limitation in claim 15 determined to be metal processes. The claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 17 is a method claim depending on claim 15 and recites a limitation that further restricts a limitation in claim 15 determined to be metal processes. The claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
As per claim 18, the method of claim 9, wherein realizing the one or more elements comprises:
using functional form to realize the one or more elements, the functional form augmented with sub environments of deposition in order to define an internal, local coordinate system tied to the functional form (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2016.05(g)).
Step 2A, prong 1:
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim recites a limitation determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as indicated above. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 19 is a method claim depending on claim 9 and recites a limitation that further restricts a limitation in claim 9 determined to be metal processes. The claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
As per claim 20, the method of claim 1, wherein the model comprises model properties; (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2016.05(g)) and
further comprising performing geostatistical property population in order to encode high-frequency perturbations resident in observed wireline or seismic data in the model properties of the model. (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2016.05(g))
Step 2A, prong 1:
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim recites a limitation determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as indicated above. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
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 1-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henri Li (Modeling of Point Bar Geology Using a Grid Transformation Scheme and Geostatistics, University of Texas at Austin, Dec. 2015) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 109783944 B).
As per claim 1, Li teaches a method of providing an image of a subsurface region using the conditioning of surface-based geologic models of a subsurface, the method comprising:
accessing an indication of a plurality of mud layers in the subsurface (p. 4 ¶ 1, p. 6 ¶ 2; Li teaches geometry of mud layers and modeling them; this teaching indicates accessing an indication of a plurality of mud layers in the subsurface in point bars’ geology);
constructing a mud background comprising the plurality of mud layers (p. 6 ¶ 2, p. 7 Fig. 2.2, p. 16 Fig. 2.9; Li teaches constructing a mud background comprising the plurality of mud layers);
conditioning, using the indication of the plurality of mud layers making up the mud background; and (p. 4 ¶ 1, p. 5 ¶ 2, p. 6 ¶ 2; Li teaches modeling geometry of mud layers in point bars’ geology, which are a series of convex banks along a meandering channel belt shown in Fig. 2.1; this teaching reads onto this limitation); and
building a model based on the conditioning (p. 4 ¶ 1, p. 5 ¶ 2, p. 6 ¶ 2; Li teaches modeling geometry of mud layers in point bars’ geology, which are a series of convex banks along a meandering channel belt shown in Fig. 2.1; this teaching reads onto this limitation).
Li does not teach:
emplacing at least one geologic body on the mud background; and
producing an image of the subsurface region for use in hydrocarbon production.
However, Zhang teaches:
emplacing at least one geologic body on the mud background (p. 7 ¶ 6, p. 11 ¶ 6-8; Zhang teaches modeling a reservoir with different small layers including mud layers; the teaching of modeling a reservoir including mud layers inherently means emplacing at least one geologic body on the mud background); and
producing an image of the subsurface region for use in hydrocarbon production (p.4 ¶ 5, p. 7 ¶ 6, p. 11 ¶ 6-8, Fig. 9; Zhang teaches modeling a reservoir with different small layers including mud layers for oil field production).
Li and Zhang are analogous art because they are in the same field of modeling layers of 3D geology. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li and Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Zhang’s teachings would have effectively improved the oil field production efficiency and yield (Zhang p. 4 ¶ 5).
As per claim 2, Li and Zhang in combination teach the method of claim 1, Li further teaches wherein the at least one geologic body comprises one or more of channels (p. 5 ¶ 2; Li teaches a geologic body comprising channels),
As per claim 3, Li and Zhang in combination teach the method of claim 1, Li further teaches wherein the at least one geologic body comprises at least one channel (p. 5 ¶ 2; Li teaches a geologic body comprising channels)
As per claim 4, Li and Zhang in combination teach the method of claim 1, Li further teaches wherein the indication of the plurality of mud layers defines thickness (p. 4 ¶ 1) and orientation of the plurality of mud layers (p.7 ¶ 2, p. 8 ¶ 1; Li teaches point bar re-orientation and modeling point bars, which include mud layers; these teachings inherently mean indication of orientation of the plurality of mud layers).
As per claim 5, Li and Zhang in combination teach the method of claim 4, Li further teaches wherein the thickness of the mud layers varies across the plurality of mud layers (p. 9 Fig. 2.4; the figure shows layers of mud, whose thickness vary).
As per claim 6, Li and Zhang in combination teach the method of claim 4, Li further teaches wherein the orientation of the mud layers varies across the plurality of mud layers (p. 32 ¶ 1; Li teaches a point bar model including a plurality of layers and the complexity of the internal geometry of a point bar comprising major erosional events altering the path; major erosion surfaces correspond to re-orientation surfaces, which inherently means the orientation of the mud layers varies across the plurality of mud layers).
As per claim 7, Li and Zhang in combination teach the method of claim 1, Li further teaches wherein the indication of a plurality of mud layers comprises a surface-based model with one or more properties comprising at least one of target or actual geologic body fractions (p. 9 Fig. 2.4; the figure illustrates actual geologic body fraction of layers of mud and sand),
As per claim 8, Li and Zhang in combination teach the method of claim 1, Li further teaches wherein conditioning comprises sequential conditioning, using the indication of the plurality of mud layers, by emplacing at least one of geologic bodies at least partially layer by layer; and
wherein the model is build based on the sequential conditioning (p. 32 ¶ 1; Li teaches the model being composed of several independent curvilinear grid packages that are then stacked in sequence).
Claim 9 interpretation: The claim recites a term “convergence” without detail how to determine what requirements for “convergence” are. As a result, under BRI the Examiner interprets this term in context of recited limitations that any teaching of emplacement of a layer inherently means convergence is met in order to emplace the layer.
As per claim 9, Li and Zhang in combination teach the method of claim 8, Li further teaches wherein sequentially conditioning comprises:
realizing one or more elements for emplacing on a respective layer (p. 25 Fig. 2.16, p. 31 ¶ 1, p. 32 ¶ 1; Li teaches the modeling process with models, comprising mud layers and channels, composed of grid packages stacked in sequence; the teaching reads onto this limitation) ;
determining whether there is convergence for the emplaced one or more realized elements for the respective mud layer (p. 25 Fig. 2.16, p. 31 ¶ 1, p. 32 ¶ 1; Li teaches the modeling process with model, comprising mud layers, composed of grid packages stacked in sequence; the teaching inherently means there is determination whether there is convergence for the emplaced one or more realized elements, corresponding to channels taught by Li, for the respective mud layer); and
responsive to determining that there is convergence for the emplaced one or more realized elements for the respective mud layer, iterating to a next respective mud layer for sequential conditioning (p. 32 ¶ 1; Li teaches the modeling process with model, comprising mud layers, composed of grid packages stacked in sequence; this teaching inherently reads onto this limitation).
As per claim 10, Li and Zhang in combination teach the method of claim 9, Li further teaches wherein the next respective mud layer, relative to the respective mud layer, is positioned closer to a surface of the subsurface so that sequential conditioning is performed bottom upward (p. 32 ¶ 1; Li teaches the modeling process with model, comprising mud layers, composed of grid packages stacked in sequence; the teaching of being stacked in sequence means the sequential conditioning of mud layers is performed bottom upward).
As per claim 11, Li and Zhang in combination teach the method of claim 9, Li further teaches wherein the next respective mud layer is directly on top of the respective mud layer (p. 32 ¶ 1; Li teaches the modeling process with model composed of grid packages stacked in sequence; the teaching of being stacked in sequence means the sequential conditioning is performed bottom upward and reads onto this limitation).
As per claim 18, Li and Zhang in combination teach the method of claim 9, Li further teaches wherein realizing the one or more elements comprises:
using functional form to realize the one or more elements, the functional form augmented with sub environments of deposition in order to define an internal, local coordinate system tied to the functional form (p. 53 ¶ 1 – p. 54 ¶ 2, Fig. 4.4; Li teaches using sigmoid equation, corresponding to a functional form, to realized surfaces, dip, depth and layers beneath, corresponding to sub environments, as illustrated in Fig. 4.4).
As per claim 19, Li and Zhang in combination teach the method of claim 9, Li further teaches wherein determining whether there is convergence for the emplaced one or more realized elements for the respective mud layer comprises analyzing proportion trends, the proportion trends comprising definition of fractions (p. vi ¶ 2, p. xvi ¶ 2, 5, p. 39 ¶ 2; Li teaches modeling proportions maps using input of facies of proportions and geological trends; input of facies of proportions correspond to definition of fractions ) or
As per claim 20, Li and Zhang in combination teach the method of claim 1, Li further teaches wherein the model comprises model properties; and
further comprising performing geostatistical property population in order to encode high-frequency perturbations resident in observed wireline or seismic data in the model properties of the model (p. 2 ¶ 1, p. 39 section 3.2 Geologic Property Modeling, ¶ 1; Li teaches performing modeling geologic properties; in addition, on p. 15 ¶ 2 & p. 32 ¶ 2, p. 33 ¶ 1, Li teaches wire log and core data including seismic data showing frequency and presence of mud layers increases downstream; the frequency and presence of mud layers increase corresponds to high-frequency perturbations resident in observed wireline or seismic data in the model properties of the model encoded in the model).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Zhang et al. (CN 109783944 B) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 104574513), hereinafter Zhang513.
As per claim 12, Li and Zhang in combination teach the method of claim 9, wherein realizing the one or more elements comprises:
specify values of a functional form indicative of the geologic body, thereby generating a plurality of candidate elements for emplacing (p. 53 ¶ 1 – p. 54 ¶ 2, Fig. 4.4; Li teaches using sigmoid equation, corresponding to a functional form, to realized surfaces, dip, depth and layers beneath, corresponding to sub environments, as illustrated in Fig. 4.4); and
using a position definition in order to place the plurality of candidate elements (p. 3 ¶ 3, p. 32 ¶ 1; Li teaches using Cartesian coordinates for the geostatistical modeling of point bars including a plurality of candidate elements; Cartesian coordinates correspond to position definition to place the plurality of candidate elements).
However, Li and Zhang do not teach:
using a template definition in order to specify values of a functional form.
However, Zhang513 teaches:
using a template definition in order to specify values of a functional form (p. 1 Abstract, p. 7 ¶ 5; Zhang teaches using a template to specify values of a function).
Li, Zhang, and Zhang513 are analogous art because they are in the same field of modeling layers of 3D geology. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li, Zhang, and Zhang513. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Zhang513’s teachings would have provided a geometry-based accurate interlayer 3D distribution of characterization method (Zhang513 p. 1 Abstract).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Zhang et al. (CN 109783944 B) and Zhang513 (CN 104574513) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (Conditioning 3D Object-Based Models to Dense Well Data, Computers and Geosciences, 2018, pp. 1-11).
As per claim 13, Li, Zhang, and Zhang513 in combination teach the method of claim 12,
Li, Zhang, and Zhang513 do not teach:
wherein the position definition comprises a centerline definition in order to define centerlines for the plurality of candidate elements.
However, Wang teaches:
the position definition comprises a centerline definition in order to define centerlines for the plurality of candidate elements (p. 2 right col. last paragraph – p.3 left col. ¶ 2; Wang teaches parameterized function for centerlines that are defined with coordinates).
Li, Zhang, Zhang513, and Wang are analogous art because they are in the same field of modeling layers of 3D geology. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li, Zhang, Zhang513, and Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Wang’s teachings would have provided an optimization methodology to build conditioned objects (Wang p. 2 right col. ¶ 3).
As per claim 14, Li, Zhang, Zhang513, and Wang in combination teach the method of claim 13,
Wang further teaches:
wherein the centerline definition comprises using a centerline generator in order to automatically generate the centerlines for the plurality of candidate elements, the centerline generator using .
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Zhang et al. (CN 109783944 B) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wang et al.
As per claim 15, Li and Zhang in combination teach the method of claim 9, wherein realizing the one or more elements for emplacing on a respective layer further comprises:
Li and Zhang do not teach:
assessing the plurality of candidate elements with a cost function in order to generate an indication of realization of the plurality of candidates with at least one of wireline data, seismic data, or desired target fraction; and
determining whether the emplace the plurality of candidate elements based on the assessment of the plurality of candidate elements.
However, Wang teaches:
assessing the plurality of candidate elements with a cost function in order to generate an indication of realization of the plurality of candidates with at least one of
determining whether the emplace the plurality of candidate elements based on the assessment of the plurality of candidate elements (p. 3 left col. ¶ 4, right col. ¶ 3; Wang teaches reshaping objects, corresponding to emplacing the plurality of candidate elements, to refine their locations so that they match well data; this teaching reads onto this limitation).
Li, Zhang, and Wang are analogous art because they are in the same field of modeling layers of 3D geology. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li, Zhang, and Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Wang’s teachings would have provided an optimization methodology to build conditioned objects (Wang p. 2 right col. ¶ 3).
As per claim 16, Li, Zhang, and Wang in combination teach the method of claim 15, Wang further teaches wherein determining whether to emplace the plurality of candidate elements based on the assessment of the plurality of candidate elements comprises selecting for emplacement a best candidate element from the plurality of candidate elements (p. 3 left col. ¶ 4, right col. ¶ 3; Wang teaches reshaping objects to refine their locations based on optimization of an objective function, which means the best candidate element from the plurality of candidate elements is emplaced based on assessment).
As per claim 17, Li, Zhang, and Wang in combination teach the method of claim 15, Wang further teaches wherein determining whether to emplace the plurality of candidate elements based on the assessment of the plurality of candidate elements comprises selecting respective candidate elements whose indication generated by the cost function is less than a specified cost threshold (p. 6 left col. ¶ 2 in section 4.1 Step 1: build database; Wang teaches a threshold for optimization using the objective function).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong Van Luu whose telephone number is 571-272-8572. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Rehana Perveen, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3676, 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.
/CUONG V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189