CTFR 17/647,792 CTFR 100607 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 18-20 are presented for examination based on the amended claims in the application filed on March 30, 2026. Claims 2, 5, and 7-17 have been cancelled by the applicant. 07-34-01 Claim 1, 3-4, 6, and 18-20 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 1, 3-4, 6, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-4, 6, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0393587 A1 Hornby et al. [herein “Hornby”] in view of US 5,278,805 Christopher V. Kimball [herein “Kimball”], and in further view of Banerjee, Abir, and Rima Chatterjee. “Fracture analysis using Stoneley waves in a coalbed methane reservoir.” Near Surface Geophysics 20, no. 6-Near‐Surface Geophysics for Mineral Exploration and Mining (2022): 710-722 [herein “Banerjee”] . This action is made Final . Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment The amendment filed March 30, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 18-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection, 112(a) rejection(s), and 112(b) rejection(s) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 13, 2026. The claim interpretation of the 112(f) limitation found in claim 18 is moot due the amendment on the claim limitation which now avoids the claim from being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 1, 3-4, 6, and 18-20 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. Claim 1 recites the term “near”, which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention (See MPEP § 2173.05(b)). Claim 18, having similar limitations of claim 1, is also rejected under the similar rationale. Claims 3-4, 6, and 19-20, which are dependent on claims 1 and 18, respectively, are similarly rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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, 3-4, 6, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below. Step 1: Claims1, 3-4, and 6 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process; and claims 18-20 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of a machine. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes. In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2A Prong 1: Claims 1 and 18: The limitations of: “ for each first depth window among the first subset of depth windows: determining, using a dispersion model, each first dispersion curve among a first subset of dispersion curves using the acoustic dataset within each first depth window ”, “ for each second depth window among the second subset of depth windows: determining second slowness-frequency pairs using the acoustic dataset ”, and “ determining a slowness window for each frequency based on a slowness intercept of the second dispersion curve and previous slowness at a previous frequency of the second dispersion curve ”, as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, the following can be conducted as the following: calculating dispersion curves can be conducted using borehole wave dispersion equations for each of the first depth windows (the borehole wave dispersion equations can be found in Para. 0028), calculating slowness-frequency pairs from a second portion of the data set can be conducted calculating the frequency log through a Fourier transform of the data set and the slowness log through a slowness time coherence analysis of the data set (see Para. 0027, the equations for Fourier Transforms and slowness time coherence can be found: Sullivan, Dennis “Signals and Systems for Electrical Engineers I .” CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2018 and Bennett, Nicholas N. “3D slowness time coherence for sonic imaging.” Geophysics 84, no. 5 (2019), respectively), calculating a slowness window for the second portion of data can be conducted by taking the absolute value of twice the difference between a first slowness at a previous frequency and the slowest intercept from the dispersion curve then adding and subtracting that value from the intercept to yield a slowness range, i.e., a slowness window (see Para. 0037 for the general range formula). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A. Furthermore, regarding claims 1 and 18: The limitations of: “ determining a set of depth windows along the well ”, “ separating the set of depth windows into a first subset of depth windows and a second subset of depth windows ”, “ for each first depth window among the first subset of depth windows: determining, using a dispersion model, each first dispersion curve among a first subset of dispersion curves using the acoustic dataset within each first depth window ”, “ for each second depth window among the second subset of depth windows, initializing a second dispersion curve among a second subset of dispersion curves by selecting a first dispersion curve among the first subset of dispersion curves ”, “ determining second slowness-frequency pairs using the acoustic dataset ”, “ updating the second dispersion curve using a recursive scanning method ”, “ wherein the recursive scanning method comprises: for each frequency among the second dispersion curve in order of increasing frequency : determining a slowness window for each frequency based on a slowness intercept of the second dispersion curve and a previous slowness at a previous frequency of the second dispersion curve ”, “ selecting a slowness as a minimum slowness-frequency pair among the second slowness-frequencies pairs at the second frequency within the slowness window ”, “ characterizing rock properties of rock near the well based on the first subset of dispersion curves and the second subset of dispersion curves, wherein the rock properties comprise at least one of a porosity or a permeability of the rock ”, and “ identifying prolific portions of the hydrocarbon reservoir based on the rock properties ”, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, each of these limitations can be conducted as the following: a person can mentally separate or draw with pen and paper areas in a well to form windows of the well based on the material composition in the areas of the well , a person can mentally categorize or draw with pen and paper the windows well to form subsets of the windows based on the material composition in the areas of the well , a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper dispersion curves using borehole wave dispersion equations for each of the first depth windows, (the borehole wave dispersion equations can be found in Para. 0028), a person can mentally select or draw with pen and paper a dispersion curve in the first set of dispersion curves that has the closest distance to a dispersion curve in the second set of dispersion curves as the second dispersion curve, a person can mentally select or draw with pen and paper the slowness and the frequency log data from the second portion of the dataset that is not in the area of dispersion , a person can mentally select or draw with pen and paper the smallest slowness-frequency pair for each dispersion curve that was calculated through a recursive scan method for each window, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the slowness window using simple arithmetic by taking the absolute value of twice the difference between a first slowness at a previous frequency of the second dispersion curve and the slowest intercept of the second dispersion curve from the dispersion curve then by both adding and subtracting that value from the intercept to yield a slowness range, for example, a slowness window, for each frequency in the slowness window in order of increasing frequency, a person can mentally select or draw with pen and paper the newest slowness by choosing the slowness-frequency pair that has the lowest slowness value within the slowness window , a person can mentally describe or draw with pen and paper rock properties such as a rock having a high permeability based on the low levels of slowness and frequencies in the set of dispersion curves , and a person can mentally identify or draw with pen and paper large areas of a hydrocarbon reservoir that should be used for drilling that contain the characterized rock properties that have the high permeability. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A. Therefore, yes, claims 1 and 18 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception. Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1 and 18: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: “ obtaining an acoustic dataset along a well that accesses a hydrocarbon reservoir ”, “ acoustic tool configured to collect an acoustic dataset along a well that accesses a hydrocarbon reservoir ”, and “ receive the acoustic dataset ” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC). Further, the following additional elements “ a system ” and “ a computer system ” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1 and 18 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application. Step 2B: Claims 1 and 18: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” and MPEP § 2106.05(g) recites “ Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering: Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation , In re Grams , 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Testing a system for a response , the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers , 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982).). Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Regarding claims 3, and 19, they recite additional limitations of “ wherein the first subset of dispersion curves and the second subset of dispersion curves represent Stoneley wave dispersions ” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating dispersion curves can be conducted using borehole wave dispersion equations which are designed for Stoneley wave dispersions (the borehole wave dispersion equations can be found in Para. 0028). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A. Furthermore, claims 3 and 19 recite additional limitations of “ wherein the first subset of dispersion curves and the second subset of dispersion curves represent Stoneley wave dispersions ”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper dispersion curves can be conducted using borehole wave dispersion equations for Stoneley wave dispersions for each of the first depth windows (the borehole wave dispersion equations can be found in Para. 0028). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A. Regarding claims 4, and 20, they recite additional limitations of “ wherein a first union of the first subset of dispersion curves and the second subset of dispersion curves is a set of dispersion curves for the set of depth windows ”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally combine or draw with pen and paper the first subset of dispersion curves along with the second subset of dispersion curves to comprise of a complete set of dispersion curves for the depth windows. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A. Regarding claim 6, it recites an additional limitation of “ wherein the dispersion model is a theoretical dispersion model ” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating dispersion curves can be conducted using the theoretical borehole wave dispersion equations (the borehole wave dispersion equations can be found in Para. 0028). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A. Furthermore, claim 6 recites additional limitations of “ wherein the dispersion model is a theoretical dispersion model ”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper dispersion curves can be conducted using theoretical borehole wave dispersion equations for each of the first depth windows, (the borehole wave dispersion equations can be found in Para. 0028). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A. Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 18-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 3-4 and 6 as well as 19-20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their dependent claim 1 and 18, respectively. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-4, 6, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0393587 A1 Hornby et al. [herein “Hornby”] in view of US 5,278,805 Christopher V. Kimball [herein “Kimball”], and in further view of Banerjee, Abir, and Rima Chatterjee. “Fracture analysis using Stoneley waves in a coalbed methane reservoir.” Near Surface Geophysics 20, no. 6-Near‐Surface Geophysics for Mineral Exploration and Mining (2022): 710-722 [herein “Banerjee”] . As per claim 1, Hornby teaches “ A method comprising: obtaining an acoustic dataset along a well that accesses a hydrocarbon reservoir ”. (Abstract, “ An acoustic logging method that may comprise acquiring waveforms for multiple acoustic wave modes as a function of tool position in a borehole; deriving position-dependent mode dispersion curves from the waveforms” [ A method comprising obtaining an acoustic dataset ]. Para. 0022, “Accordingly, FIG. 1 shows an illustrative logging while drilling (LWD) environment . A drilling platform 2 is equipped with a derrick 4 that supports a hoist 6. The rig operator drills an oil or gas well using a drill string 8 of multiple concentric drill pipes ” [ along a well that accesses a hydrocarbon reservoir ]. Para. 0029, “The internal controller fires the monopole acoustic source 72 periodically, producing acoustic pressure waves that propagate through the fluid in borehole wall 20 and into the surrounding formation ” [ along a well that accesses a hydrocarbon reservoir ]. “As these pressure waves propagate past the receiver array 76, they cause pressure variations that can be detected by the receiver array elements ” [ obtaining an acoustic dataset along a well that accesses a hydrocarbon reservoir ]. Further see Para. 0021-0023, 0028-0030, and the Abstract. The examiner has interpreted that acquiring and detecting acoustic pressure waves in a borehole wall and the surrounding formation of an oil well through an acoustic logging method as a method comprising: obtaining an acoustic dataset along a well that accesses a hydrocarbon reservoir. ) Hornby also teaches “ determining a set of depth windows along the well ”. (Para. 0043, “During measurement operation of a wellbore, processing of a wellbore may involve zoning in about 50 ft. to about 100 ft. (about 15 meters to about 30 meters) sections ”. Para. 0043, “The inversion for mud slowness in a zone (depth interval) is done by minimizing the ‘global’ objective function.” Further see Para. 0043. The examiner has interpreted that zoning a wellbore into sections by depth intervals as determining a set of depth windows along the well .) Hornby also teaches “ separating the set of depth windows into a first subset of depth windows and a second subset of depth windows ”. (Para. 0044, “FIG. 8 shows the fitting of a smoothly varying mud slowness curve to the mud-slowness estimates from all the zones. Note in this example the data points are separated by approximately 100 ft., which would be the depth interval for each zone . However, smaller zones may be necessary if the mud slowness changes more rapidly”. Further see Para. 0043. The examiner has interpreted that zoning a wellbore into sections by depth intervals separated by approximately 100ft for the depth interval of each zone as separating the set of depth windows into a first subset of depth windows and a second subset of depth windows .) Hornby also teaches “ for each first depth window among the first subset of depth windows: determining, using a dispersion model, each first dispersion curve among a first subset of dispersion curves using the acoustic dataset within each first depth window ”. (Para. 0047, “In this context global means constant (depth independent) over the zone, where a zone is a set of at least one or usually more contiguous depths , as opposed to varying from depth-to-depth within the zone like the anisotropy does” [ e.g., for each first depth window among the first subset of depth windows ]. This workflow assumes the availability of a pre-computed library 1202 of dispersion curves, i.e., the expected slowness of a given acoustic wave mode generated by a specific acoustic tool as a function of frequency for a given set of formation parameters. The library (theoretical dispersion curves) may be computed ‘on-the-fly’ if processing power is sufficient ” [ e.g., determining each first dispersion curve among a first subset of dispersion curves ]. Para. 0033, “ Though the term “velocity” is commonly used, the measured value is normally a scalar value, i.e., the speed. The speed (velocity) may also be equivalently expressed in terms of slowness, which is the reciprocal of speed.) When the velocity is determined as a function of frequency, the velocity may be termed a “dispersion curve”, as the variation of velocity with frequency causes the wave energy to spread out as it propagates ”. Para. 0043, “During measurement operation of a wellbore, processing of a wellbore may involve zoning in about 50 ft. to about 100 ft. (about 15 meters to about 30 meters) sections, inverting for a global (i.e. depth independent in a section) mud slowness in each section, fitting the zone-to-zone mud slowness to a smoothly varying continuous mud slowness curve, and doing a final depth-to-depth Thomsen Gamma inversion over the entire well using the mud slowness curve ” [ determining, using a dispersion model, each first dispersion curve among a first subset of dispersion curves using the acoustic dataset within each first depth window ]. Further see Para. 0033, 0043, and 0047-0049. The examiner has interpreted that computing theoretical dispersion curves for zones having one or usually more contiguous depths through a library of curves and the fitting the zone-to-zone mud slowness smoothly to continuous varying mud slowness curve for a final depth-to-depth Thomsen Gamma inversion over the entire well using the mud slowness curve as for each first depth window among the first subset of depth windows: determining, using a dispersion model, each first dispersion curve among a first subset of dispersion curves using the acoustic dataset within each first depth window .) Hornby also teaches “ for each second depth window among the second subset of depth windows: initializing a second dispersion curve among a second subset of dispersion curves by selecting a first dispersion curve among the first subset of dispersion curves ”. (Para. 0047, “This workflow assumes the availability of a pre-computed library 1202 of dispersion curves, i.e., the expected slowness of a given acoustic wave mode generated by a specific acoustic tool as a function of frequency for a given set of formation parameters. The library (theoretical dispersion curves) may be computed ‘on-the-fly’ if processing power is sufficient ”. Para. 0047, “ A direct retrieval may be possible if the parameter values correspond precisely to the values of a precomputed curve , but more often the system may employ some form of interpolation to derive the desired dispersion curve from the precomputed curves for nearby parameter values ” [ e.g., initializing a second dispersion curve among a second subset of dispersion curves by selecting a first dispersion curve among the first subset of dispersion curves ]. Para. 0048, “ These parameters are depth dependent ” [ for each second depth window among the second subset of depth windows ]. Further see Para, 0047-0049 . The examiner has interpreted that as employing a direct retrieval of a precomputed curve to derive the desired dispersion curve from the precomputed curves from the library dispersion curves for nearby parameter values that are dependent on the depth as for each second depth window among the second subset of depth windows: initializing a second dispersion curve among a second subset of dispersion curves by selecting a first dispersion curve among the first subset of dispersion curves .) Hornby also teaches “ determining a second slowness-frequency pairs using the acoustic dataset ”. (Para. 0047, “A direct retrieval may be possible if the parameter values correspond precisely to the values of a precomputed curve, but more often the system may employ some form of interpolation to derive the desired dispersion curve from the precomputed curves for nearby parameter values ” [ determining slowness-frequency pairs for the second subset of depth windows using the acoustic dataset ]. Para. 0049, “ Also compute the data dispersion curves, S x d (f), from the acoustic waveforms for the depths in the zone” [ using the acoustic dataset ]. Further see Para. 0047-0049. The examiner has interpreted that deriving the desired dispersion curve from the precomputed curves for nearby parameter values using the acoustic waveforms as determining slowness-frequency pairs using the acoustic dataset .) Hornby also teaches “ updating the second dispersion curve using a recursive scanning method ”. (Para. 0044, “However, smaller zones may be necessary if the mud slowness changes more rapidly” [ break subsets into smaller portions, e.g., characteristic of recursive scanning ]. Para. 0054, “The theoretical dispersion curves generally change monotonically with respect to (γ,s), so if the theoretical dispersion curves are a good fit to the data dispersion curves a single solution may be found via an iterative search .” [ using a recursive scanning method ] Para. 0066, “ The process 1404-1406 is repeated until the mud slowness/density at the objective function minimum along a line of constant mud slowness or density stops changing between iterations ” [ updating the second dispersion curve using a recursive scanning method ]. Further see Para. 0054 and 0066. The examiner has interpreted that finding good fits to the data dispersion curves through an iterative search in smaller zones until the mud slowness meets a threshold as updating the second dispersion curve using a recursive scanning method. ) Hornby also teaches “ characterizing rock properties of rocks near the well based on the first subset of dispersion curves and the second subset of dispersion curves .” (Para. 0069, “ Acoustic logging measurements may be valuable for determining the velocity structure of subsurface formations , which information may be useful for migrating seismic survey data to obtain accurate images of the subsurface formation structure” [ based on the first subset of dispersion curves and the second subset of dispersion curves ]. Para. 0069, “Such imaging enables reservoirs to be delineated from surrounding formations, and further indicates the presence of formation boundaries, laminations, and fractures ” [ characterizing rock properties of rocks near the well ]. Further see Para. 0069. The examiner has interpreted that identifying and delineating fractures in the surrounding formation of the reservoir from determined velocity structures as characterizing rock properties of rocks near the well based on the first subset of dispersion curves and the second subset of dispersion curves .) Hornby also teaches “ identifying prolific portions of the hydrocarbon reservoir based on the rock properties ”. (Para. 0069, “ Such imaging enables reservoirs to be delineated from surrounding formations, and further indicates the presence of formation boundaries, laminations, and fractures, ” [ identifying prolific portions of the hydrocarbon reservoir based, at least in part, on the rock properties ]. Further see Para. 0069 . The examiner has interpreted that delineating the reservoir from the surrounding formations by identifying formation fractures as identifying prolific portions of the hydrocarbon reservoir based on the rock properties .) Hornby does not specifically teach “ for each frequency among the second dispersion curve in order of increasing frequency: determining a slowness window for each frequency based on a slowness intercept of the second dispersion curve and a previous slowness at a previous frequency of the second dispersion curve ” and “ selecting a slowness as a minimum slowness-frequency pair among the second slowness-frequency pairs within the slowness window ”. However, in the same field of endeavor namely modeling borehole dispersion waves, Kimball teaches “ for each frequency among the second dispersion curve in order of increasing frequency: determining a slowness window for each frequency based on a slowness intercept of the second dispersion curve and a previous slowness at a previous frequency of the second dispersion curve ”. (Col. 11 Ln. 66-68, “Given the initial slowness estimate , S 0 , the time origin T 0 of the window is determined through a search called a time scan ” [ determining a slowness window based on a slowness intercept and a previous slowness ]. Col. 13 Ln. 55-59, “ Since the slowness estimation takes place in the frequency domain from f lower …f upper , the frequency content of the signal is important only as it effects the value of T 0 found during window positioning of each set of data ” [ a slowness window for each frequency based on a previous frequency, for each frequency among the second dispersion curve in order of increasing frequency and of the second dispersion curve ]. Further see Col. 11 and 13. The examiner has interpreted that determining a window through a time scan search using a time origin and an initial slowest estimate by estimating the slowest with each set of data from the frequency content in the frequency domain from a lower frequency to an upper frequency as for each frequency among the second dispersion curve in order of increasing frequency determining a slowness window for each frequency based on a slowness intercept and a previous slowness at a previous frequency .) Kimball also teaches “ selecting a slowness as a minimum slowness-frequency pair among the second slowness-frequency pairs within the slowness window ”. (Col. 10 Ln. 25-28, “For logging, STC processing performs a constrained search on ρ(S,T) over the slowness-time plane , identifying local maxima as arrivals, and outputting their slowness coordinate ” [ selecting a second slowness at the second frequency as a minimum slowness-frequency pair among the second slowness-frequency pairs ]. Col. 13 Ln. 55-59, “ Since the slowness estimation takes place in the frequency domain from f lower . . . f upper , the frequency content of the signal is important only as it effects the value of T 0 found during window positioning of each set of data ” [ within the slowness window ]. Col. 7 Ln 50-51, “ the phase and group slowness are nearly equal to the formation shear slowness S ” [ e.g., phase slowness is the minimum slowness ]. Col. 12 Ln. 65 – Col. 13 Ln 55, “Because calculation of the dispersion curves S P (f,S) for the dipole flexural mode is time-consuming, preferably at least one set of precomputed dispersion curves such as seen in FIG. 4 are kept in digital form in memory. As seen in FIG. 4, the set of curves contains the phase slownesses S P (f,S) as a function of frequency f for a range of formation slowness ” [ determining a slowness using a minimum slowness-frequency pair ]. Further see Col. 10-13. The examiner has interpreted that outputting slowness coordinate from a constrained search over the slowness-time plane and estimating the slowness in the frequency domain during window positioning of each set of data for the phase slowness as selecting a slowness as a minimum slowness-frequency pair among the second slowness-frequency pairs within the slowness window .) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “ for each frequency among the second dispersion curve in order of increasing frequency: determining a slowness window for each frequency based on a slowness intercept of the second dispersion curve and a previous slowness at a previous frequency of the second dispersion curve ” and “ selecting a slowness as a minimum slowness-frequency pair among the second slowness-frequency pairs within the slowness window ” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Kimball, into that of Hornby because this modification of estimating the dispersion curves for the advantageous purpose of decreasing the computation time required in the determination of the formation slowness in dispersive waves (Kimball Col. 3 Ln 15-30). Further motivation to combine be that Hornby and Kimball are analogous art to the current claim are directed to modeling borehole dispersion waves. Neither Hornby nor Kimball specifically teach “ wherein the rock properties comprise at least one of a porosity or a permeability of the rock .” However, in the same field of endeavor namely planning hydrocarbon production, Banerjee teaches “ wherein the rock properties comprise at least one of a porosity or a permeability of the rock ”. (Pg. 711. Col. 2, “The interactivity of the Stoneley wave with open fractures causes reflection, attenuation and transmission (Hornby et al., 1989). Figure 2 presents a pictorial view of the Stoneley wave passing through the borehole wall (solid–liquid interface) and interacting with the permeable formation and fractures. During the interaction in the fractured formation, there is an occurrence of reflection, transmission and attenuation of the wave ”. The examiner has interpreted that analyzing of the interaction of Stoneley waves with the fracture and permeable formation as wherein the rock properties comprise at least one of a porosity or a permeability of the rock. ) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “ wherein the rock properties comprise at least one of a porosity or a permeability of the rock ” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Banerjee, into that of Hornby and Kimball because this modification of analyzing the dispersion curves for rock permeabilities for the advantageous purpose of generating a greater potential for optimized hydrocarbon reservoir production (Banerjee Pg. 178, Col. 1). Further motivation to combine be that Hornby, Kimball, and Banerjee are analogous art to the current claim are directed to planning hydrocarbon production. As per claim 3, Hornby teaches “ wherein the first subset of dispersion curves and the second subset of dispersion curves represent Stoneley wave dispersions .” (Para. 0047, “ The library (theoretical dispersion curves) may be computed ‘on-the-fly’ if processing power is sufficient ” [ the first subset of dispersion curves ]. Para. 0047, “A direct retrieval may be possible if the parameter values correspond precisely to the values of a precomputed curve, but more often the system may employ some form of interpolation to derive the desired dispersion curve from the precomputed curves for nearby parameter values ” [ second subset of dispersion curves ]. Para. 0063, “The inversion process obtains relevant dispersion curves, such as Stoneley , Flexural, and/or the like” [ Stoneley wave dispersions ]. Furthermore, see Para. 0047 and 0063 . The examiner has interpreted that calculating theoretical dispersion curves and deriving dispersion curve from the precomputed curves for nearby parameter values to obtain relevant Stoneley dispersion curves as wherein the first subset of dispersion curves and the second subset of dispersion curves represent Stoneley wave dispersions .) As per claim 4, Hornby teaches “ wherein a first union of the first subset of dispersion curves and the second subset of dispersion curves is a set of dispersion curves for the set of depth windows .” (Para. 0047, “In this context global means constant (depth independent) over the zone, where a zone is a set of at least one or usually more contiguous depths ,” [ for the set of depth windows ] “as opposed to varying from depth-to-depth within the zone like the anisotropy does. This workflow assumes the availability of a pre-computed library 1202 of dispersion curves, i.e., the expected slowness of a given acoustic wave mode generated by a specific acoustic tool as a function of frequency for a given set of formation parameters. The library (theoretical dispersion curves) may be computed ‘on-the-fly’ if processing power is sufficient ” [ the first subset of dispersion curves ]. Para. 0047, “A direct retrieval may be possible if the parameter values correspond precisely to the values of a precomputed curve, but more often the system may employ some form of interpolation to derive the desired dispersion curve from the precomputed curves for nearby parameter values ” [ second subset of dispersion curves ]. Para. 0054 “so if the theoretical dispersion curves are a good fit to the data dispersion curves a single solution may be found via an iterative search” [ union of the dispersion curves ]. Further see Para. 0047 and 0054. The examiner has interpreted that calculating theoretical dispersion curves and deriving dispersion curve from the precomputed curves for nearby parameter values to form a single solution for one or more depths as wherein a first union of the first subset of dispersion curves and the second subset of dispersion curves is a set of dispersion curves for the set of depth windows. ) As per claim 6, Hornby teaches “ wherein the dispersion model is a theoretical dispersion model .” (Para. 0047, “ The library (theoretical dispersion curves) may be computed ‘on-the-fly’ if processing power is sufficient ”. Further see Para. 0047 . The examiner has interpreted that computing theoretical dispersion curves as wherein the dispersion model is a theoretical dispersion model .) Re Claim 18, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1. Furthermore, as per claim 18, Hornby teaches “ A system comprising: acoustic tool configured to collect an acoustic dataset along a well that accesses a hydrocarbon reservoir ” and “ a computer system configured to: receive the acoustic dataset ”. (Para. 0025, “The wireline tool assembly can include an acoustic logging tool similar to the LWD embodiment described herein below. Other formation property sensors may additionally or alternatively be included to measure formation properties as the tool is pulled uphole . A logging facility 68 collects measurements from the wireline logging tool 62 and includes computing facilities for processing and storing the measurements gathered by the logging tool” [ A system comprising: acoustic tool configured to collect an acoustic dataset along a well ]. Para. 0022, “The rig operator drills an oil or gas well using a drill string 8 of multiple concentric drill pipes ” [ a well that accesses a hydrocarbon reservoir ]. Para. 0030, “the receiver array signals may be processed by the internal controller to determine the true formation anisotropy and shear velocity, or the signals may be communicated to the uphole computer system for processing ” [ a computer system configured to: receive the acoustic dataset ]. Further see Para. 0022, 0025, and 0030. The examiner has interpreted that performing logging while drilling to drill a well using a drill string and using acoustic logging tool that measured formation properties in an uphole that is drilled to access an oil well using a drill string and communicates signals to a computer system for processing as a system comprising: acoustic tool configured to collect an acoustic dataset along a well that accesses a hydrocarbon reservoir and a computer system configured to: receive the acoustic dataset .) Re Claim 19, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3. Re Claim 20, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed on March 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 1 and 18 features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims do not recite mental processes as the claims cannot be practically performed in the mind (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 8-10). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) recites “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions ”, “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer ”, and “in evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept . In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” The examiner has provided the rational for the claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process in the rejection above. For example, the limitation of amended claims 1 and 18 “ determining, using a dispersion model, each first dispersion curve among a first subset of dispersion curves using the acoustic dataset within each first depth window ” has been interpreted as a mental process since a person can use pen and paper to formulate dispersion curves for each of the first depth windows using borehole wave dispersion equations. The borehole wave dispersion equations can be found in Para. 0028, and a person can use these equations to determine the dispersion curves using the provided data across different portions, e.g., windows, of data. Furthermore, even if this is not a mental process, this limitation is still an abstract idea, a mathematical concept as maintained in the rejection above, since determining dispersion curves is the output of dispersion model equations as provided in Para. 0028. Additionally, the limitation of amended claims 1 and 18 “ characterizing rock properties of rock near the well based on the first subset of dispersion curves and the second subset of dispersion curves, wherein the rock properties comprise at least one of a porosity or a permeability of the rock ” has been interpreted as a mental process since a person mentally determine or with the aid of pen and paper that if low levels of slowness and frequencies are found in the set of dispersion curves, then the rocks of this window have a high permeability. This a fundamental property of permeability which can easily be recognized by a person mentally by visually examining the slow-frequency points of the dispersion curves in the frequency domain. The examiner has properly identified that the claims which recite a mental concept as provided in the rejection above have been properly rejection under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). The claims are directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea. Applicant argues that claim 1 features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is integrated into a practical application by reciting an improvement in offset well drilling operations (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 8-10). MPEP § 2106.05(I) recites “ An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself ." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”; MPEP § 2106.04(I) “Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (" a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea ")”; MPEP § 2106.05(a) recites “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements ”; MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II) recites “examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application”; MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) recites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity . i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network , ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”; and MPEP § 2106.05(g) recites “ Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering: Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation , In re Grams , 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Testing a system for a response , the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers , 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982).” The examiner has provided the rational for the independent claim limitations are being directed to a mental process and a mathematical concept in the rejection above. These limitations cannot provide the improvement as the improvement must come from an additional element. With regards to claims 1 and 18, the additional elements of “ obtaining an acoustic dataset along a well that accesses a hydrocarbon reservoir ”, “ acoustic tool configured to collect an acoustic dataset along a well that accesses a hydrocarbon reservoir ”, and “ receive the acoustic dataset ” have been interpreted as receiving data captured from well, i.e., gathering test data, which has been defined by MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as well-understood, routine, or conventional. The examiner agrees with the applicant that this is not a mental process, but the limitation is an insignificant extra-solution data gathering step and such evidence is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Furthermore, the additional elements of “ a system ” and “ a computer system ” have been interpreted as recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the examiner has properly identified that the claims recite mental processes, mathematical concepts, and additional elements that merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activities. Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach each and every limitation in amended claim 1 because cite references fail to teach “ determining, using a dispersion model, each first dispersion curve among a first subset of dispersion curves using the acoustic dataset within each first depth window ” (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 11-15). MPEP § 2143.03 states that “ All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art” and “ Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art.” Hornby discloses “ determining, using a dispersion model, each first dispersion curve among a first subset of dispersion curves using the acoustic dataset within each first depth window ” as computing theoretical dispersion curves for zones having one or usually more contiguous depths through a library of curves and the fitting the zone-to-zone mud slowness smoothly to continuous varying mud slowness curve for a final depth-to-depth Thomsen Gamma inversion over the entire well using the mud slowness curve. First, the library of dispersion curves are computed on the fly from data on the well, e.g., a dispersion model for the well. Secondly, the speed or slowness as a function of and variation of frequency is determined as a slowness curve whose mud slowness is fitted zone to zone to the slowness dispersion curves, e.g., determine first dispersion curves using dispersion model and acoustic data. Furthermore, computing dispersion models for contiguous depths for each zone using a computed library of curves for the initial subset of depths, dispersion curves are generated and fitted over the zone and models to smoothly generate the curves. While precomputed library of dispersion models is taught by Hornby, Hornby also teaches that computed the models in Para. 0047 that “ The library (theoretical dispersion curves) may be computed ‘on-the-fly’ if processing power is sufficient ”, and this the embodiment replied up by the examiner in the claim mapping as seen above. Thus, the claimed limitation is taught. Therefore, this limitation of the amended claim 1 is disclosed in Hornby, and the combination of cited references renders the claimed invention obvious. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 and 18 as obvious over the cited references is maintained. Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach each and every limitation in amended claim 1 because cite references fail to teach “ for each frequency among the second dispersion curve in order of increasing frequency: determining a slowness window for each frequency based on a slowness intercept of the second dispersion curve and a previous slowness at a previous frequency of the second dispersion curve ” and “ selecting a slowness as a minimum slowness-frequency pair among the second slowness-frequency pairs within the slowness window ” (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 11-15). MPEP § 2143.03 states that “ All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art” and “ Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art.” Kimball discloses “ for each frequency among the second dispersion curve in order of increasing frequency: determining a slowness window for each frequency based on a slowness intercept of the second dispersion curve and a previous slowness at a previous frequency of the second dispersion curve ” as determining a window through a time scan search using a time origin and an initial slowest estimate by estimating the slowest with each set of data from the frequency content in the frequency domain from a lower frequency to an upper frequency. The time scan window which is determined as a slow estimate in the frequency domain is not just a scanning window, but a window determined based on the slowness estimate and this window is positioned based on the slowness . Thus, the time window determined is a slowness window. Kimball also discloses “ selecting a slowness as a minimum slowness-frequency pair among the second slowness-frequency pairs within the slowness window ” as outputting slowness coordinate from a constrained search over the slowness-time plane and estimating the slowness in the frequency domain during window positioning of each set of data for the phase slowness. Similarly, as discussed above, the time scanning window of the slowness estimate taught by Kimball is a slowness window. The slowness coordinate is the slowness and time position on the dispersion curve, where time being dependent on the frequence, e.g., the slowness-frequency pair. Further, by outputting the slowness coordination within the window that indicates the phases slowness of the formation slowness, the claimed limitation is taught. Therefore, these limitations of the amended claim 1 are disclosed in Hornby, and the combination of cited references renders the claimed invention obvious. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 and 18 as obvious over the cited references is maintained . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tang, Xiaoming, Doug Patterson, and Lei Wu. "Measurement of formation permeability using Stoneley waves from an LWD acoustic tool." In SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, pp. SPWLA-2009. SPWLA, 2009 et al. teaches a method for analyzing the permeability in a borehole by a LWD acoustic tool using Stoneley waves. 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. Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET. 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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. /SIMEON P DRAPEAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188 /RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 2 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 3 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 4 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 5 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 6 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 7 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 8 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 9 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 10 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 11 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 12 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 13 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 14 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 15 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 16 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 17 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 18 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 19 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 20 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 21 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 22 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 23 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 24 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 25 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 26 Art Unit: 2188 Application/Control Number: 17/647,792 Page 27 Art Unit: 2188
Prosecution Insights