DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
This office action is in response to submission of application on 29-JUL-2022.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/29/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill) “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) “Mathematical Relationships A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
determining … a plurality of pressure values for the grid cells corresponding to the wellbore and for the grid cells not corresponding to the wellbore, based on the model data for the reservoir region of interest;
Determining the pressure values for the grid cells for cells corresponding to the wellbore and not corresponding to the wellbore is an evaluation where the model data for the reservoir region of interest is observed.
determining … a flowrate at the grid cells corresponding to the wellbore based on the determined pressure values and on a predetermined flowrate metric, where the flowrate metric is a function of well index, a pressure quantity, and a mobility variable, and
The flowrate based on the pressure values and the flowrate metric is an evaluation. The determination can also be interpreted as a mathematical relationship based on [0039] and Eq. 1 of the specification as filed.
where the mobility variable is a non-linear function of gas condensate saturation and pressure;
The mobility variable is further evaluation. It can also be interpreted as a mathematical relationship based on [0040] and Eq. 2 of the specification as filed.
determining … a subset of the grid cells not corresponding to the wellbore where a determined pressure value is less than dew pressure; and
Determining the subset of the grid cells is an observation of the cells and an evaluation of the inequality. Further, the inequality can be interpreted as a mathematical relationship.
determining … a flowrate for the determined subset of the one or more grid cells based on the determined pressure values and on the predetermined flowrate metric.
Determining the flowrate for the subset is observation of the pressure values and flowrate metric and an evaluation of the flowrate. The determination can also be interpreted as a mathematical relationship based on [0039] and Eq. 1 of the specification as filed.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process and mathematical concepts.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
The following step is merely gathering the data on elements to be used in the calculation:
providing … a coarse grid model comprising a plurality of grid cells in a plurality of layers, including grid cells corresponding to a wellbore and grid cells not corresponding to the wellbore;
providing … model data for a reservoir region of interest;
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception has found simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
, using a computer processor,
, using the computer processor,
, using the computer processor,
, using the computer processor,
, using the computer processor,
, using the computer processor,
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is mere data gathering/post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) and a general purpose computer do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, in regards to step 2B and as cited above in step 2A, MPEP 2106.05(g) “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir.2011)” is merely data gathering.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
2. “The method according to claim 1, wherein the flowrate metric is a product of the well index, the pressure quantity, the mobility variable and a pseudo-pressure blocking factor.”
Determining the product of the recited elements is a mathematical relationship. Step 2A Prong One.
3. “The method according to claim 2, wherein the pseudo-pressure blocking factor is a function of grid cell mobility relative to hydrocarbon phases existing at different pressures.”
Determining a function of grid cell mobility by using the hydrocarbon phases existing at different pressure is determining a mathematical relationship. Step 2A Prong One.
4. “The method according to claim 1, wherein the mobility variable represents upstream hydrocarbon component molar mobility.”
Further defining the variable to “upstream hydrocarbon component molar mobility” is mere data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(g).
5. “The method according to claim 1, wherein the mobility variable is a sum of an oil component and a gas component.”
Determining the sum of the oil and gas component is determining a mathematical relationship. Step 2A Prong One.
6. “The method according to claim 5, wherein the oil component is a product of an oil component mole fraction and a relative permeability term.”
Determining the product of a fraction and a term is a mathematical relationship. Step 2A Prong One.
7. “The method according to claim 5, wherein the gas component is a product of a gas component mole fraction and a relative permeability term.”
Determining the product of a fraction and a term is a mathematical relationship. Step 2A Prong One.
8. “The method according to claim 1, wherein the well is a gas condensate well.”
Collecting information on the type of well and the elements associated with a gas condensate well is mere data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 9-16 are system claims, containing substantially the same elements as method Claims 1-8, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 101 as Claims 1-8, respectively, Mutatis mutandis. The additional element of “a computer processor” is interpreted as a general purpose computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 17-20 are medium claims, containing substantially the same elements as method Claims 1-2 and 4-5, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 101 as Claims 1-2 and 4-5, respectively, Mutatis mutandis. The additional element of “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a computer processor, the instructions comprising functionality for” is interpreted as a general purpose computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Middya et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0286971 A1 (hereinafter ‘Middya’) in view of
Manzoor et al., “Efficient Modeling Of Near Wellbore Phenomena For large Scale Gas-Condensate Systems In Massively Parallel Reservoir Sim” [2018] (hereinafter ‘Manzoor’).
Regarding Claim 1: A method, comprising:
Middya teaches providing, using a computer processor, a coarse grid model comprising a plurality of grid cells in a plurality of layers, including grid cells corresponding to a wellbore and grid cells not corresponding to the wellbore; ([0067] and Figs. 2 and 3 Middya “…As a principal of operation according to an exemplary configuration, the simulation divides the reservoir 101 into multiple areal planes to form layers 118 each having a number (Nx) of grid block 103 in the "x" direction and a number (Ny) of grid blocks 103 in "y" direction. Since reservoirs are three dimensional volumes, these areal planes are stacked together vertically to describe the reservoir in three dimensions. The number of layers 118 in the vertical direction is denoted by (Nz). Therefore, a reservoir simulator is composed ofNz areal planes each having Nx*Ny grid blocks 103. Hence, the total number of the grid blocks 103 in the reservoir simulator/simulation according to the exemplary configuration is Nx*Ny*Nz. In a vertical well example, the vertical well axis extends through all the planes/layers 118 at the well location, and a perforation of the well 119 would be located in a grid block 103 in which the well axis extends through, located in one of the areal planes. When the well 119 produces from this perforation, it will primarily drain from this particular areal plane. Considering multiple perforations in a vertical well, each perforation will preferentially drain from the respective areal plane ( e.g., face of the respective layer 118) of the reservoir 101 in which the respective perforation is located. The part of a well 119 that is contained within this areal plane is referred to as the "well segment" 117, the particular areal plane, itself, is referred to as the "drainage plane" 115 (see, e.g., FIG. 3), and the associated grid block 103 where the perforation is located is referred to as the perforated grid block 113…”)
PNG
media_image1.png
506
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
560
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Middya teaches providing, using the computer processor, model data for a reservoir region of interest; ([0066] Middya “…According to the exemplary embodiment of the system, the drainage boundary program product 70 and/or the fluid flux program product 60 can, for example, include instructions that when executed by the reservoir simulator computer 30 cause the reservoir simulator computer 30 to perform the operation of determining the 110 of a three dimensional boundaries drainage volume box 111 (see FIG. 2) extending around one or more perforated grid blocks 113 and a plurality of neighboring grid blocks 103, by tracking the sign of the plurality of computed fluid flux vectors 107 along the drainage plane 115 of the particular well segment 117 contained within the respective perforated grid block 113 for each perforated grid block 113 associated with the respective well 119. According to an example configuration, the fluid flux vector and/or drainage boundary determinations can be made at each converged time step and/or each Newton iteration of the finite difference grid centered reservoir simulator for one or more wells…”)
Middya teaches determining, using the computer processor, a plurality of pressure values for the grid cells corresponding to the wellbore and for the grid cells not corresponding to the wellbore, based on the model data for the reservoir region of interest; ([0018] Middya “…The static well pressure program product can include instructions that when executed by the reservoir simulator computer cause the reservoir simulator computer to perform the operations of determining an estimate of the effective drainage volume of each of the one or more wells responsive to the respective determined drainage boundaries of each of the one or more drainage planes associated with the respective one or more wells, storing the estimate of the effective drainage volume of each of the one or more wells in the third database, determining a dynamic grid block pressure of the each of a plurality of grid blocks contained within the respective effective drainage volume of each of the one or more wells, storing the dynamic grid block pressures in the fourth database, determining a pore volume average of the dynamic grid block pressure of at least a substantial subset of the plurality of grid blocks contained within each respective effective drainage volume of each respective well to thereby define an estimated static well pressure for each of the one or more wells, and storing the static well pressure for each separate one of the one or more wells in the fifth database…”)
Middya teaches determining, using the computer processor, a subset of the grid cells not corresponding to the wellbore ([0022] Middya “…The operations can further include determining an estimate of the effective drainage volume of the well responsive to the determined drainage boundaries of at least one of the one or more drainage planes to thereby identify the grid blocks contained within the effective drainage volume, determining a dynamic grid block pressure of each of a plurality of the grid blocks contained within the effective drainage volume of the well, and determining a pore volume average of the dynamic grid block pressure of at least a substantial subset of the plurality of grid blocks contained within the effective drainage volume of the well to thereby define an estimated static well pressure for the well…”)
Middya does not appear to explicitly disclose
determining, using the computer processor, a flowrate at the grid cells corresponding to the wellbore based on the determined pressure values and on a predetermined flowrate metric, where the flowrate metric is a function of well index, a pressure quantity, and a mobility variable, and where the mobility variable is a non-linear function of gas condensate saturation and pressure;
a subset of the grid cells not corresponding to the wellbore where a determined pressure value is less than dew pressure; and
determining, using the computer processor, a flowrate for the determined subset of the one or more grid cells based on the determined pressure values and on the predetermined flowrate metric.
However, Manzoor teaches determining, using the computer processor, a flowrate at the grid cells corresponding to the wellbore based on the determined pressure values and on a predetermined flowrate metric, where the flowrate metric is a function of well index, a pressure quantity, and a mobility variable, and where the mobility variable is a non-linear function of gas condensate saturation and pressure; (The limitations is interpreted in view of [0039]-[0040] of the specification as filed and Eq. 1 and Eq. 2. Eq. 1 as found is the specification as filed is presented as
PNG
media_image3.png
26
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
28
394
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Pg. 3 Section Modelling near wellbore phenomena and Eqs. 1 and Eqs. 2 Manzoor “…The numerical simulation of reservoir and well bore fluid flow processes is typically based on a modified set of partial differential (conservation) equations, coupled dynamically. Reservoir boundary conditions come in the form of well controls that are used to match historical data and/or define operational limits for reservoir forecasting. In general, discrete grid cell size used in reservoir simulation is much larger than that of the wellbore and would introduce singularities if the well was discretized similar to that of grid cell size. Well productivity index (WIl) is introduced to couple wells to the reservoir. this relates well bore pressure and flow to the grid cell parameters (Peaceman 1978), The well inflow performance relationship for a compositional case for a given phase p through layer/completion l connected to grid block i, is given by
PNG
media_image5.png
30
438
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where λc,l is the upstream hydrocarbon component molar mobility, pi is grid cell pressure. pw,l is the wellbore pressure incorporating gravity and friction effects for the layer l. For producing completions the mobility term is the defined as
PNG
media_image6.png
52
414
media_image6.png
Greyscale
here krp represents relative permeability, pp corresponds to molar density, and µp is viscosity with subscript p relating to hydrocarbon (oil/gas) phase. In Equation (2) xc and yc represent oil and gas component-mole-fraction respectively. The quantities defining mobility term (λc,l) are a function of saturation and pressure…”)
PNG
media_image7.png
230
346
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Manzoor teaches a subset of the grid cells not corresponding to the wellbore where a determined pressure value is less than dew pressure; and (Pg. 3 Section “Gas-Condensate rate equation and pseudo-pressure” last paragraph and Figure 5 Manzoor “…Tn order to improve the accuracy of gas-condensate well inflow modelling without increasing the grid resolution, pseudo-pressure method is commonly used. Fevang and Whitson (Fevang and Whitson 1995) showed that well-deliverability in full field models can be calculated for gas condensate wells operating below dew-point using pseudo-pressure method. …”)
Manzoor teaches determining, using the computer processor, a flowrate for the determined subset of the one or more grid cells based on the determined pressure values and on the predetermined flowrate metric. (Continued Pg. 3-4 Section “Gas-Condensate rate equation and pseudo-pressure” Manzoor “…The pseudo-pressure method computes the relation between molar or volumetric flow rate from a well grid block and the local wellbore pressure Pseudo-pressure option replaces the traditional single point upstream well mobility (Equation (2)) with an integrated fom1 that more accurately predicts condensate banking in the high drawdown regimes around the wellbore independent of well geometry. Pseudo-pressure calculations are based on dividing the area around the well into three flow regimes as shown in Figure 1. Three flow regimes are based on conceptual envision that initially a small condensate bank is formed which is entirely below critical saturation (Chang et al., l 98>§) … In the first near well region (S0 , kro, krg > 0) the flow- of gas is reduced due to mobile oil. Similarly in the second region (S0 , krg > 0 and kro = 0) the gas flow- is also reduced due to presence of immobile oiL while in the third region there is no oil phase pressure p > pd) and only dry gas is present and flowing…”)
Middya and Manzoor are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, oil reservoir modeling.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaches determining, using the computer processor, a plurality of pressure values for the grid cells corresponding to the wellbore and for the grid cells not corresponding to the wellbore, based on the model data for the reservoir region of interest as disclosed by Middya by determining, using the computer processor, a flowrate at the grid cells corresponding to the wellbore based on the determined pressure values and on a predetermined flowrate metric, where the flowrate metric is a function of well index, a pressure quantity, and a mobility variable, and where the mobility variable is a non-linear function of gas condensate saturation and pressure and a subset of the grid cells not corresponding to the wellbore where a determined pressure value is less than dew pressure and determining, using the computer processor, a flowrate for the determined subset of the one or more grid cells based on the determined pressure values and on the predetermined flowrate metric as disclosed by Manzoor.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the model by incorporating additional elements when modeling gas-condesate systems as discussed on pg. 2 last paragraph of Manzoor “…Evaluation of pseudo-pressure integral requires vapor liquid equilibration (VLE) process together with non-linear expression solved at each integration point Although less expensive than fine grid simulation, use of pseudo pressure option can add significant computational cost especially in field scale simulation. Accurate modelling of near wellbore phenomena in foll field gas-condensate system requires an efficient approach coupling pseudo-pressure integral, not only with velocity (capillary-number) dependent relative permeability. but also with non-Darcy flow effects efficiently. ln this work an efficient method for evaluation of pseudo-pressure integral, with provision to couple modeling of velocity dependent relative permeability and non-Darcy fiow is presented…”
Regarding Claim 2: Middya and Manzoor teach The method according to claim 1,
Manzoor teaches wherein the flowrate metric is a product of the well index, the pressure quantity, the mobility variable and a pseudo-pressure blocking factor. (The limitations is interpreted in view of [0039] of the specification as filed and Eq. 1. Eq. 1 as found is the specification as filed
PNG
media_image3.png
26
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pg. 4 and Eq. 4 Manzoor “…effect of pseudo-pressure can be modeled by simply modifying conventional well inflow- component molar rate Equation (1), thereby introducing a dimensionless flow blocking factor (FB1) i.e…”)
PNG
media_image8.png
26
430
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3: Middya and Manzoor teach The method according to claim 2,
Manzoor teaches wherein the pseudo-pressure blocking factor is a function of grid cell mobility relative to hydrocarbon phases existing at different pressures. (The limitations is interpreted in view of [0041] of the specification as filed and Eq. 3. Eq. 3 as found is the specification as filed
PNG
media_image9.png
54
232
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
Pg. 4 and Eq. 5 Manzoor “…Blocking factor (FB1) is applied to hydrocarbon components only, and from Equation (4) and Equation (3) accounting for hydrocarbons is given by…”)
PNG
media_image10.png
52
434
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4: Middya and Manzoor teach The method according to claim 1,
Manzoor teaches wherein the mobility variable represents upstream hydrocarbon component molar mobility. (Pg. 3 2nd paragraph Manzoor “…where λc,l is the upstream hydrocarbon component molar mobility…”)
Regarding Claim 5: Middya and Manzoor teach The method according to claim 1,
Manzoor teaches wherein the mobility variable is a sum of an oil component and a gas component. The limitations is interpreted in view of [0040] of the specification as filed and Eq. 2. Eq. 2 as found is the specification as filed
PNG
media_image4.png
28
394
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Pg. 3 3rd paragraph and Eq. 2 Manzoor
PNG
media_image6.png
52
414
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“…here krp represents relative permeability, pp corresponds to molar density, and µp is viscosity with subscript p relating to hydrocarbon (oil/gas) phase. In Equation (2) xc and yc represent oil and gas component-mole-fraction respectively. The quantities defining mobility term (λc,l) are a function of saturation and pressure…”)
Regarding Claim 6: Middya and Manzoor teach The method according to claim 5,
Manzoor teaches wherein the oil component is a product of an oil component mole fraction and a relative permeability term. (Pg. 3 3rd paragraph and Eq. 2 Manzoor
PNG
media_image6.png
52
414
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“…here krp represents relative permeability, pp corresponds to molar density, and µp is viscosity with subscript p relating to hydrocarbon (oil/gas) phase. In Equation (2) xc and yc represent oil and gas component-mole-fraction respectively. The quantities defining mobility term (λc,l) are a function of saturation and pressure…”
The oil component model fraction and a relative permeability term
PNG
media_image11.png
50
86
media_image11.png
Greyscale
…”)
Regarding Claim 7: Middya and Manzoor teach The method according to claim 5,
Manzoor teaches wherein the gas component is a product of a gas component mole fraction and a relative permeability term. (Pg. 3 3rd paragraph and Eq. 2 Manzoor
PNG
media_image6.png
52
414
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“…here krp represents relative permeability, pp corresponds to molar density, and µp is viscosity with subscript p relating to hydrocarbon (oil/gas) phase. In Equation (2) xc and yc represent oil and gas component-mole-fraction respectively. The quantities defining mobility term (λc,l) are a function of saturation and pressure…”
The oil component model fraction and a relative permeability term
PNG
media_image12.png
54
86
media_image12.png
Greyscale
…”)
Regarding Claim 8: Middya and Manzoor teach The method according to claim 1,
Manzoor teaches wherein the well is a gas condensate well. (Pg. 2 1st paragraph Manzoor “…Optimizing gas--condensate well recovery requires an accurate and efficient method for modelling the deliverability of gas-condensate wells. Well-deliverability is a critical issue in the development of many gas-condensate reservoirs. In a gas-condensate system, production data for some gas-condensate wells have shown that well productivity is significantly reduced when wellbore bottom-hole-flowing-pressure (BHFP) drops below the saturation pressure of the in-place fluid…”)
Claims 9-16 are system claims, containing substantially the same elements as method Claims 1-8, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 as Claims 1-8, respectively, Mutatis mutandis.
Claims 17-20 are medium claims, containing substantially the same elements as method Claims 1-2 and 4-5, respectively, and are rejected on the same grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 as Claims 1-2 and 4-5, respectively, Mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E JOHANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-3PM.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. 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.
/JOHN E JOHANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2187