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
1. The amendment filed 06/16/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
2. Claims 1, 9 and 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. US 12209492 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Claims in the instant invention are anticipated by Claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12209492 B2. under In re Goodman and constitutes an obvious variation.
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.
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.
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.
3. Claims 1, 3, 7-10, 12, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terabayashi et al. (US 20100154529 A1), in view of Sullivan et al. (US 20200256189 A1), further in view of Chen et al. (US 20150211357 A1).
Aer Claim 1, Terabayashi et al. teaches a method (Abstract) comprising:
disposing a fluid sampling tool into a wellbore at a first location (Fig. 1 [0016]-[0017], [0021] “the example wireline tool 100 is suspended in a borehole or wellbore 102”, “the fluid admitting assembly 116 to draw fluid samples from the formation F and to control the fluid analysis module 120 to measure the fluid samples.”, “formation tester 114 also includes a fluid analysis module 120 through which the obtained fluid samples flow.”, “formation sampling tool 200 includes a probe assembly 202”);
taking a first fluid sample with the fluid sampling tool (Fig. 1 [0016]-[0017], [0021], [0022, [0027], “the fluid admitting assembly 116 to draw fluid samples from the formation F and to control the fluid analysis module 120 to measure the fluid samples.”, “formation tester 114 also includes a fluid analysis module 120 through which the obtained fluid samples flow.”, “the probe assembly 202 draws a first sample of fluid from a first wellbore location (e.g., a first production zone) ”);
measuring, via the fluid sampling tool, a … asphaltene onset pressure (AOP) … ([0027], [0031]-[0033], [0036]-[0037] “ the processing unit 228 may be used to control the fluid measurement unit 218 to perform spectral measurements of fluid characteristics of formation fluid, to actuate a valve 230 to enable a fluid sample to flow into the flowline 212, and to determine an asphaltene onset pressure”);
moving the fluid sampling tool to a second location in the wellbore ([0021]-[0023] “formation sampling tool 200”, “the probe assembly 202 draws a first sample of fluid from a first wellbore location (e.g., a first production zone) and a second sample of fluid from a second wellbore location (e.g., a second production zone), which is different than the first wellbore location”);
taking a second fluid sample with the fluid sampling tool ([0021]-[0023], [0035] “formation sampling tool 200”, “the probe assembly 202 draws a first sample of fluid from a first wellbore location (e.g., a first production zone) and a second sample of fluid from a second wellbore location (e.g., a second production zone), which is different than the first wellbore location”). In particular, Terabayashi teaches a downhole formation sampling tool that draws fluid samples from first and second wellbore locations and includes a fluid analysis module that determines an asphaltene onset pressure ([0027], [0031]-[0033], [0036]-[0037]).
However, Terabayashi et al. fails to teach explicitly a first asphaltene onset pressure (AOP) under isothermal conditions, wherein measuring the first AOP comprises depressurizing the first fluid sample within a housing of the fluid sampling tool;
measuring, via the fluid sampling tool, a second AOP at the second location in the wellbore; and
forming an AOP map based at least on the first AOP and second AOP.
Sullivan et al. teaches measuring… a first asphaltene onset pressure (AOP) under isothermal conditions, wherein measuring the first AOP comprises depressurizing the first fluid sample within a housing of the fluid sampling tool ([0006]-[0007], [0042], [0047], [0051]-[0052], [0065]-[0074], [0080]- [0081]; Fig. 15 “This measurement may be performed with a laser as the light source and the sample at reservoir temperature”: Examiner’s Note – “under isothermal conditions” corresponds to Sullivan’s measurement performed with “the sample at reservoir temperature” while only the pressure is lowered, i.e., at constant temperature);
measuring, via the fluid sampling tool, a second AOP at the second location in the wellbore ([0042], [0047], [0051]-[0052], [0065]-[0074]). In particular, Sullivan teaches an individual-sample technique in which a formation fluid sample is isolated in a fluid detection chamber enclosed by a housing of the downhole tool ([0036] “the fluid sample is at least partly constrained in a detection chamber 604, which can be defined by or enclosed by a housing 602”) and depressurized by a piston while the sample is held at reservoir temperature, and the asphaltene onset pressure of the formation fluid is determined from the pressure at which a change in an optical signal due to asphaltene flocculation occurs during depressurization of the individual sample.
Terabayashi et al. and Sullivan et al. are analogous art because they are both related to an asphaltene analysis/measurement for reservoir simulation/modeling.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Sullivan et al. into Terabayashi et al.’s invention to provide a method that efficiently determines asphaltene onset pressure (Sullivan et al.: [00033]). In particular, applying Sullivan’s individual-sample AOP measurement technique to the first fluid sample obtained at Terabayashi’s first wellbore location, prior to mixing with the second sample would yield the claimed first AOP measurement, and applying Sullivan’s individual-sample AOP measurement technique to the second fluid sample obtained at Terabayashi’s second wellbore location would yield the claimed second AOP measurement.
However, Terabayashi et al. as modified by Sullivan et al. fails to teach explicitly forming an AOP map based at least on the first AOP and second AOP.
Chen et al. further teaches forming an AOP map based at least on the first AOP and second AOP ([0051]). In particular, Chen et al. teaches thata predicted asphaltene onset pressure gradient compiled as a function of depth constitutes an AOP map that spatially characterizes the variation of AOP across the reservoir for evaluating reservoir connectivity between different depths and identifying compartmentalization ([0051]).
Terabayashi et al., Sullivan et al., and Chen et al. are analogous art because they are all related to an asphaltene analysis/measurement for reservoir simulation/modeling.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Chen et al. into Terabayashi et al. and Sullivan et al.’s invention because compiling the directly measured AOP values obtained by the combined individual-sample technique of Terabayashi et al. and Sullivan et al. at the multiple wellbore locations would produce such an AOP map with improved accuracy prediction for production efficiency (Chen et al.: [0001]-[0002], [0047]).
As per Claim 12, Terabayashi et al. teaches a system (Abstract) comprising:
a fluid sampling tool with one or more probes for injection injecting the one or more probes into a wellbore and taking a plurality of fluid samples from the wellbore (Fig. 2, [0019], [0020]-[0027], [0035]),…; and
an information handling system (Fig. 2, [0023]-[0027]) for:
measuring, via the fluid sampling tool, a … (AOP) from at least the plurality of fluid samples ([0027], [0031]-[0033], [0036]-[0037]).
Terabayashi et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein the fluid sampling tool is configured to measure asphaltene onset pressure (AOP) under isothermal conditions at least by causing the precipitation of asphaltene particles within a housing of the fluid sampling tool using one or more of the plurality of fluid samples from the wellbore; and
measuring… a first … AOP…;
measuring, via the fluid sampling tool, a second AOP from at least the plurality of fluid samples; and forming an AOP map from the first AOP and second AOP.
Sullivan et al. teaches wherein the fluid sampling tool is configured to measure asphaltene onset pressure (AOP) under isothermal conditions at least by causing the precipitation of asphaltene particles within a housing of the fluid sampling tool using one or more of the plurality of fluid samples from the wellbore ([0006]-[0007], [0042], [0047], [0051]-[0052], [0065]-[0074], [0080]-[0081]; Fig. 15 “This measurement may be performed with a laser as the light source and the sample at reservoir temperature”: Examiner’s Note – “under isothermal conditions” corresponds to Sullivan’s measurement performed with “the sample at reservoir temperature” while only the pressure is lowered, i.e., at constant temperature);
measuring… a first … AOP ([0042], [0047], [0051]-[[0052], [0065]-[0074]);
measuring, via the fluid sampling tool, a second AOP from at least the plurality of fluid samples ([0042], [0047], [0051]-[[0052], [0065]-[0074]).
Terabayashi et al. and Sullivan et al. are analogous art because they are both related to an asphaltene analysis/measurement for reservoir simulation/modeling.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Sullivan et al. into Terabayashi et al.’s invention to provide a method that efficiently determines asphaltene onset pressure (Sullivan et al.: [00033]). In particular, applying Sullivan’s individual-sample AOP measurement technique to the first fluid sample obtained at Terabayashi’s first wellbore location, prior to mixing with the second sample would yield the claimed first AOP measurement, and applying Sullivan’s individual-sample AOP measurement technique to the second fluid sample obtained at Terabayashi’s second wellbore location would yield the claimed second AOP measurement.
However, Terabayashi et al. as modified by Sullivan et al. fails to teach explicitly forming an AOP map based at least on the first AOP and second AOP.
Chen et al. further teaches forming an AOP map based at least on the first AOP and second AOP ([0051]).
Terabayashi et al., Sullivan et al., and Chen et al. are analogous art because they are all related to an asphaltene analysis/measurement for reservoir simulation/modeling.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Chen et al. into Terabayashi et al. and Sullivan et al.’s invention because compiling the directly measured AOP values obtained by the combined individual-sample technique of Terabayashi et al. and Sullivan et al. at the multiple wellbore locations would produce such an AOP map with improved accuracy prediction for production efficiency (Chen et al.: [0001]-[0002], [0047]).
As per Claim 3 and 14, Terabayashi et al. fails to teach explicitly further comprising forming a reservoir simulation based at least on the AOP map.
Chen et al. teaches further comprising forming a reservoir simulation based at least on the AOP map (Chen et al.: [0048], [0051] “the asphaltene onset pressure at different depths can be predicted using a simulator.”).
As per Claim 7, Terabayashi et al. teaches wherein the first location and the second location are separated by vertical depth, lateral distance, extent pressure across a field, different temperature, or other state condition ([0020], [0022] “the probe assembly 202 draws a first sample of fluid from a first wellbore location (e.g., a first production zone) and a second sample of fluid from a second wellbore location (e.g., a second production zone), which is different than the first wellbore location. …the ratio may be representative of an amount of hydrocarbons associated with each of the different wellbore locations.”).
As per Claim 8 and 18, Terabayashi et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein measuring the first AOP, measuring the second AOP, and forming the AOP map is processed in real time.
Sullivan et al. teaches wherein measuring g the first AOP, measuring the second AOP … is processed in real time (Fig. 8 & 11, [0067], [0070], [0080], Claim 1 on column 9 “g. fitting at least the determined first and second pressures as a function of depressurization rate to a curve; h. determining the asphaltene onset pressure of the fluid sample from said curve.”).
Further Chen et al. teaches wherein … forming the AOP map is processed in real time ([0036] “fluid phase information, such as the asphaltene onset pressure at different depths, can be predicted qualitatively and quantitatively downhole in real time.”).
As per Claim 9, Terabayashi et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein measuring the first AOP and second AOP comprises performing a gravimetric test with the fluid sampling tool at the first location and the second location.
Sullivan et al. teaches wherein measuring the first AOP and second AOP comprises performing a gravimetric test with the fluid sampling tool at the first location and the second location (Abstract “Asphaltene onset pressure of a formation fluid is determined by subjecting the fluid to a plurality of tests”, [0006]-[0007]“Laboratory techniques to measure the AOP of a reservoir fluid ”).
As per Claim 10 and 20, Terabayashi et al. teaches wherein performing the gravimetric test comprises determining a first Upper Asphaltene Onset Pressure (UAOP), a Asphaltene+Resin-Flocculation Onset Pressure (ARFO), or a Bubble Point (BP) ([0015] “the temperature and pressure at which a bubble (i.e., a separating gas phase) is initially detected in the fluid is associated with a bubble point.”, [0019] “Such parameters may include, for example, an asphaltene onset pressure, a bubble point and/or a dew point”).
As per Claim 19, Terabayashi et al. teaches wherein the fluid sampling tool performs a gravimetric test ([0003] “To identify the asphaltene onset pressure and the bubble point of a formation fluid, known techniques rely heavily on laboratory analysis.”) and the information handling system (Fig. 6) identifies the …AOP and the … AOP from the gravimetric test ([0027]).
Terabayashi et al. fails to teach explicitly the first AOP and the second AOP.
Sullivan et al. teaches the first AOP and the second AOP ([0042], [0047], [0051]-[[0052], [0065]-[0074]).
4. Claims 2, 4-6, 11, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terabayashi et al. (US 20100154529 A1), in view of Sullivan et al. (US 20200256189 A1) and Chen et al. (US 20150211357 A1), further in view of Pop et al. (US 20170284198 A1).
Terabayashi et al. as modified by Sullivan et al. and Chen et al. teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 3, 7-10, 12, 14, and 18-20 above.
As per Claim 2 and 13, Terabayashi et al. as modified by Sullivan et al. and Chen et al. teaches wherein at least the first AOP and the second AOP are used in a… model to form the AOP map (Sullivan et al.: [0042], [0047], [0051]-[0052], [0065]-[0074]; Chen et al.: [0051]), except first Neural Network (NN) model.
Pop et al. teaches first Neural Network (NN) model ([0050]-[0051] “the saturation pressure model uses optical spectrometer data acquired during sampling operations. The saturation pressure model may utilize a variety of different computational methodologies, including but not limited to, multivariate analysis, artificial neural networks, Bayesian networks, support vector machines, and so forth.”).
Terabayashi et al. as modified by Sullivan et al. and Chen et al. and Pop et al. are analogous art because they are all related to an asphaltene analysis for reservoir simulation/modeling.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Pop et al. into Terabayashi et al. as modified by Sullivan et al. and Chen et al. et al.’s invention to provide a method that efficiently determines asphaltene onset pressure (Sullivan et al.: [00033]) and to estimate the properties or behavior of petroleum fluid in a reservoir with increased accuracy prediction for production efficiency (Chen et al.: [0001]-[0002], [0047]), and to provide an accurate estimation with a variety of different computational methodologies to facilitate determining characteristics of the formation fluid (Pop et al.: [0005], [0051], [0063]).
As per Claim 4 and 15, Terabayashi et al. as modified by Sullivan et al. and Chen et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein at least the AOP map is used in a second Neural Network (NN) model to form the reservoir simulation.
Pop et al. teaches wherein at least the AOP map is used in a second Neural Network (NN) model to form the reservoir simulation ([0047], “simulated pumping time… while the flow line pressure is controlled based on a future estimated saturation pressure plus the associated uncertainty.”, [0050]-[0051] “The saturation pressure model may utilize a variety of different computational methodologies, including but not limited to, multivariate analysis, artificial neural networks, Bayesian networks, support vector machines, and so forth.”).
As per Claim 5 and 16, Terabayashi et al. as modified by Sullivan et al. and Chen et al. teaches further comprising making a production decision based at least on the reservoir simulation.
Pop et al. teaches further comprising making a production decision based at least on the reservoir simulation ([0048] “the contamination level can be reduced faster when the flow line pressure is maintained to be above the future estimated saturation pressure plus the uncertainty by using the saturation pressure model described herein. … when the saturation pressure model is used to maintain the flow line pressure above the future estimated saturation pressure plus the uncertainty.”).
As per Claim 6 and 17, Terabayashi et al. as modified by Sullivan et al. and Chen et al. teaches wherein at least the reservoir simulation is used in a third NN model to form the production decision ([0048], “when the saturation pressure model is used to maintain the flow line pressure above the future estimated saturation pressure plus the uncertainty.”, [0050]-[0051] “The saturation pressure model may utilize a variety of different computational methodologies, including but not limited to, multivariate analysis, artificial neural networks, Bayesian networks, support vector machines, and so forth.”).
As per Claim 11, Terabayashi et al. as modified by Sullivan et al. and Chen et al.teaches wherein at least the UAOP, the ARFO, or the BP from the gravimetric test are used in a … to identify the first AOP or the second AOP (Terabayashi et al.: [0015] “the temperature and pressure at which a bubble (i.e., a separating gas phase) is initially detected in the fluid is associated with a bubble point.”, [0019] “Such parameters may include, for example, an asphaltene onset pressure, a bubble point and/or a dew point”, [0023], [0036]; Chen et al.: Fig. 5, [0043], [0049] [0051]: asphaltene onset pressure (AOP) can be either calculated or measured for any samples where it could be collected at reservoir locations;), except a fourth NN model.
Pop et al. teaches a fourth NN model ([0050]-[0051] “the saturation pressure model uses optical spectrometer data acquired during sampling operations. The saturation pressure model may utilize a variety of different computational methodologies, including but not limited to, multivariate analysis, artificial neural networks, Bayesian networks, support vector machines, and so forth.”).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants have argued that:
PNG
media_image1.png
270
819
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicants' argument is more specific than the claim language. The claims recite “measuring … an asphaltene onset pressure (AOP)” and do not recite a “true,” “actual,” “direct,” or “equilibrium” AOP, nor exclude determining AOP through processing or extrapolation. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “true” AOP measured directly by the tool without extrapolation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Sullivan is expressly directed to determining asphaltene onset pressure and determines AOP within the tool “without knowledge of the laboratory measurement of AOP” ([0080]). Applicant’s own claim 11 identifies AOP using a neural-network model, confirming that “measuring” AOP does not exclude a computed determination.
Applicants have argued that:
PNG
media_image2.png
136
807
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner disagrees that Sullivan does teach measuring AOP under isothermal conditions. Sullivan performs the measurement with “the sample at reservoir temperature” while only the pressure is lowered ([0006]), effects depressurization solely by changing the isolated sample volume with a piston, monitors sample temperature with a temperature detector, and characterizes each sample at a fixed temperature ([0081] “Each oil sample was characterized at three different temperatures, 75° C., 100° C., and 125° C.”, FIG. 15), i.e. isothermally. The parameter Sullivan varies between tests is the depressurization rate, not temperature; varying rate at a held temperature is itself isothermal. Thus, it is Examiner’s position that Sullivan operates at reservoir temperature and therefore does not teach away from isothermal measurement.
Therefore, it is Examiner’s position that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, and 103 rejection maintains.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dumont (US 11434755 B2) teaches a downhole tool that obtains a fluidly isolated formation fluid sample and determines an asphaltene onset point in real time while reducing the pressure of the isolated sample downhole.
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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 at (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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights