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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 8, filed 12 January 2026, with respect to the objections to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 9, filed 12 January 2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks page 9, filed 12 January 2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner appreciates applicant’s amendments to include “a plurality of dividers”; however, this claim language is broad enough to encompass the structure taught by Molla et al. Likewise, while the claimed device may operate differently, the claimed subject matter in claim 1, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses the structure of Molla et al. The examiner interprets Molla et al as follows;
The blue line delineates the width the of the channel.
The red arrow indicates one of the dividers located within the channel.
The green and yellow lines indicate two possible flow paths through the channel as a result of the inclusion of the dividers, creating a network of flow paths.
PNG
media_image1.png
296
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the 102 rejection of independent claim 1 over Molla et al is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks page 11, filed 12 January 2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s teaching regarding the cross-sectional area of the inlet, and has updated the rejection of claim 15 to no longer rely on an obvious change in size or proportion under case law In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc. However, the rejection is maintained as directed towards a results-effective variable that one of ordinary skill in the art would be expected to arrive at, given other considerations regarding use of the device (the means by which inlet pressure is maintained, for instance, or the relative viscosities of the substances to be tested). The 103 rejection of claim 15 has been updated to reflect this grounds.
Status of Claims
Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 12 January 2026 have been entered. Applicant's remarks filed 12 January 2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1, 12, 64, and 66 – 68 are in status “Currently Amended.” Claims 11, 15, 16, 18, 61 – 63, 65, and 69 – 73 are in status “Previously Presented.” Claims 2 – 10, 13, 14, 17, and 19 – 60 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 18, 61, 63 – 68, and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Molla et al (WO 2019067319 A2, cited on the IDS submitted 01 November 2022).
With regards to claim 1, Molla et al teaches;
The claimed “a method for assessing miscibility of an oil composition and a fluid” has been read on the taught ([0002], “The present disclosure relates to the detection of a miscibility condition in a sample…”);
The claimed “a. in a microfluidic device, heating or cooling a porous media channel to a test temperature” has been read on the taught ([0020], “…a microfluidic method of determining a miscibility condition includes a) providing a microfluidic device that includes i) a substrate defining ii) a microchannel having an inlet and an outlet which define a length of the microchannel…”; [0082], “In each of the steps 606, 608, 610, 616, and 618, the temperature of the fluids (solvent and sample fluid) in the microchannel 302 is controlled by maintaining the temperature of the microchannel 302 via temperature control of the temperature-controlled cooling/heating surface 305.”; [0065] notes that sample fluid temperature is a test condition.);
The claimed “while applying back-pressure to the porous media channel, loading the porous media channel with an aliquot of the oil composition” has been read on the taught ([0020], “b) introducing a sample of reservoir fluid into the microchannel through the inlet port until the entire microchannel is filled with the reservoir fluid…”; [0045], [0055], specifies that reservoir fluid may be oil; [0075], “The backpressure controller 410 is configured to apply a back-pressure to the microchannel 302 to maintain a constant pressure drop across the microchannel 302…”; a back-pressure controller configured to apply a back-pressure reads on “while applying back-pressure.”);
The claimed “while applying back-pressure to the porous media channel to maintain the porous media channel at a test pressure, flowing an aliquot of the fluid through the porous media channel to displace at least some of the aliquot of the oil composition from the porous media channel” has been read on the taught ([0020], “…after filling the entire microchannel with reservoir fluid, introducing a solvent of a certain composition into the microchannel through the inlet port at a controlled flow rate and inlet pressure, where the introduced solvent develops a front that moves along the main channel from the inlet to the outlet while displacing the reservoir fluid in the main channel…”; the controlled flow rate and pressure read on “while applying back-pressure […] to maintain a test pressure.”);
The claimed “during and/or after step c., conducting an optical investigation of the porous media channel to assess the miscibility of the oil composition and the fluid at the test pressure and test temperature” has been read on the taught ([0020], “…d) acquiring a series of images of at least a portion of the microchannel as the front moves from the inlet to the outlet, and e) determining, based on the acquired images, whether a miscibility condition has been reached by the time the front has reached the outlet.”; the series of images reads on the optical investigation. [0065] notes sample fluid temperature and pressure are test conditions).
The claimed “wherein the porous media channel comprises a plurality of dividers that provide the porous media channel with a network of fluid pathways to enable multiple contact between the oil composition and the fluid” has been read on the taught ([0017], “Each cavity may have sides extending from the main channel…”; The sides extending from the main channel reads on a plurality of dividers. See also Figure 2, reproduced and annotated on page 3 of this document).
With regards to claim 18, the method of claim 1 is anticipated by Molla et al.
Molla et al additionally teaches;
The claimed, “passing the aliquot of the oil composition through a filter zone of the microfluidic device to filter the aliquot of the oil composition prior to loading the aliquot of the oil composition into the porous media channel” has been read on the taught ([0074], “An in-line filter 404 […] may be fluidly coupled between the valve 403 and the inlet port 304 to remove particulate matter that could potentially clog the microchannel 302 of the microfluidic chip 300.”).
With regards to claim 61, the method of claim 1 is anticipated by Molla et al.
Molla et al additionally teaches;
The claimed, “wherein in step b., back-pressure is applied to maintain the porous media channel at the test pressure” has been read on the taught ([0075], “The backpressure controller 410 is configured to apply a back-pressure to the microchannel 302 to maintain a constant pressure drop across the microchannel 302.”).
With regards to claim 63, the method of claim 1 is anticipated by Molla et al.
Molla et al additionally teaches the iterative steps recited in claim 63, including a subsequent test pressure, as read on the taught ([0023], “The method may further include, if it is determined at e) that the miscibility condition has not been reached, iteratively repeating b) to e) until the miscibility condition is reached, but where the solvent introduced in c) in each iteration of b) to e) is introduced at an incremented inlet pressure.”).
With regards to claim 64, the method of claim 63 is anticipated by Molla et al.
Molla et al additionally teaches the further subsequent test pressures to determine the minimum miscibility pressure, as read on the taught ([0075], “The backpressure controller 410 is configured to apply a back-pressure to the microchannel 302 to maintain a constant pressure drop across the microchannel 302.”; [0002], “The present disclosure relates […] to the measurement of minimum miscibility pressure…”).
With regards to claim 65, the method of claim 1 is anticipated by Molla et al.
Molla et al additionally teaches the iterative steps recited in claim 65, including flowing a subsequent aliquot of the fluid which has a second fluid concentration, as read on the taught ([0053] In a second type of experimental study, the apparatus 100 can be used to measure minimum miscibility enrichment (MME), which is alternatively termed minimum miscibility concentration (MMC)…. the process of introducing solvent is repeated at the same pressure, but the composition of the HC solvent is changed.”).
With regards to claim 66, the method of claim 65 is anticipated by Molla et al.
Molla et al additionally teaches the further subsequent test concentrations used to determine the multiple contact minimum miscibility concentration, as read on ([0053], “…the apparatus 100 can be used to measure minimum miscibility enrichment (MME), which is alternatively termed minimum miscibility concentration (MMC)…. Specifically, in each subsequent iteration, a ratio of the quantity of CI to the quantity of heavier gas components C2-C4 may be adjusted until developed miscibility is observed, which ratio is called the minimum miscibility enrichment (MME) or minimum miscibility concentration(MMC).”).
With regards to claim 67, the method of claim 1 is anticipated by Molla et al.
Molla et al additionally teaches the detection of a presence or an absence of an interface as laid out in claim 67, as read on the taught ([0053], “Then, after the solvent flows across all of the containers, the containers 102a, 102b, and 102c are observed to determine if an interface between the solvent and the fluids in the containers 102a, 102b, and 102c have vanished.”; [0053] defines other experimental procedures for determining miscibility.).
With regards to claim 68, the method of claim 1 is anticipated by Molla et al.
Molla et al additionally details that the methods outlined can be used for miscibility displacement tests, as read on the taught ([0014], “…methods of simulating miscible displacement and rapid MMP and MME measurements in a microfluidic platform are described.”; [0064], “The mass transfer between the solvent and the sample fluid in the cavities 310 distributed along the main channel 308 emulates the multi -contact miscible displacement described above with respect to the test apparatus 100 of Fig. 1.”).
Based on this teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to assess the meaning of the measured oil displacement efficiencies.
With regards to claim 70, the method of claim 1 is anticipated by Molla et al.
Molla et al additionally teaches the claimed “wherein the fluid is a gas” as read on the taught ([0049], “In one example where the sample fluid is oil and the solvent is gas…”).
With regards to claim 71, the method of claim 1 is anticipated by Molla
Molla et al additionally teaches the claimed “wherein the oil composition is at least one of […] a multi-component composition,” as read on the taught ([0087], “The sample fluid chosen was a synthetic oil mixture of Methane (27 mol%), Butane (23 mol%), and Decane (50 mol%).”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11, 15, 62, 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molla et al (WO 2019067319 A2, cited on the IDS submitted 01 November 2022).
With regards to claim 11, the method of claim 1 is anticipated by Molla et al.
The claimed “wherein the porous media channel has […] a porous media channel width of between about 5 microns and about 500 microns” has been read on the taught ([0060], “The widths of the main channel 308 and the cavities 310 may be 50 µm, such that the total width “w” of the channel may be 150 µm.”; See also [0042]).
Molla et al additionally teaches that the length of the channel should be many times longer than the width of the channel (see [0042]).
A proposed embodiment in Molla et al teaches a length of 3m. However, nothing in the disclosure of Molla et al limits the media channel length or teaches away from a range of “between about 25 cm and about 75 cm” (as these are orders of magnitudes larger than a micron-scale channel width). According to MPEP 2144.04(IV), changes in size/proportion are not sufficient to distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art, provided that the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device—see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). The specification of the instant invention does not disclose any unexpected results occurring due to the length of the microfluidic channel.
Moreover, the exact length of testing channel needed would be dependent on the properties of the test fluids and test pressure, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as a results-dependent variable.
Accordingly, claim 11 is obvious in view of Molla et al.
With regards to claim 15, the method of claim 1 is anticipated by Molla et al.
The claimed “wherein: step c. comprises flowing the aliquot of the fluid into the porous media channel via a fluid inlet channel” has been read on the taught (See mapping of step c above. [0020] further teaches that the exemplary device has “…an inlet port fluidly coupled to the inlet of the microchannel…”; an inlet port reads on a fluid inlet channel.);
The claimed “the porous media channel has a porous media channel cross-sectional area” has been read on the taught ([0042], “…the cross section of a microchannel can be of any shape, including round, oval, ellipsoid, square, etc.”);
Additionally, Molla et al teaches that a device is used to control the inlet pressure, as read on the taught ([0018], "Also, the system includes [...] a pressure regulator or other pressure control device configured to control the inlet pressure of fluid flowing through the microchannel.").
Molla et al does not explicitly disclose wherein “the fluid inlet channel has a fluid inlet channel cross-sectional area that is less than the porous media channel cross-sectional area.” However, the exact areas needed would be dependent on the properties of the test fluids, the test pressures, and the specifics of the pressure regulator used to control the inlet pressure of the fluid.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as a results-dependent variable.
Accordingly, claim 15 is obvious in view of Molla et al.
With regards to claim 62, the method of claim 1 is anticipated by Molla et al.
The limitation of “wherein steps b. to d. are carried out over less than 30 minutes” would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Molla et al teaches a test performed by flowing a fluid through a channel. The total time of the experiment would be dependent on flow rate of the fluid, as well as pressure and viscosity. The flow rate of the test fluids is a results-dependent variable subject to routine optimization by a skilled practitioner determining minimum miscibility pressure or minimum miscibility enrichment, as evidenced by Molla et al (see discussion of flow rate in [0020] and [0044]).
Accordingly, the limitations of claim 62 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Molla et al.
With regards to claim 69, the method of claim 1 is anticipated by Molla et al.
Regarding the limitation “wherein step d. is at least partially automated,” automating a manual activity is prima facie obvious as per MPEP 2144.04(III)—see In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Accordingly, claim 69 is obvious in view of Molla et al.
Claims 12 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molla et al (WO 2019067319 A2, cited on the IDS submitted 01 November 2022) in view of Sinton et al (US 10001435 B1).
With regards to claim 12, the method of claim 1 is anticipated by Molla et al.
The claimed a “…fluid pathway has a fluid pathway width of between about 1 micron and about 50 microns” has been read on the taught ([0060], “The widths of the main channel 308 and the cavities 310 may be 50 µm…”; The width of the main channel being 50 micrometers reads on the fluid pathway having a width between about 1 micron and about 50 microns.).
However, Molla et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the porous media channel comprises a network of fluid pathways.
In the analogous art of microfluidic devices for fluid property measurements, Stinton et al teaches;
The claimed “wherein the porous media channel comprises a network of fluid pathways” has been read on the taught (Column 4, line 19, “…the flowing of the material through the main channel establishes a second pressure downstream from the first pressure, and wherein the second pressure is communicated to a downstream branch channel, the downstream branch channel connecting to the main channel downstream of the branch channel…”; The downstream branch channels reads on a network of fluidic pathways; See also Column 5, line 32 teaching on branch channels; see also Figure 7A.);
Stinton et al additionally teaches wherein each fluid pathway has a fluid pathway width of between about 1 micron and about 50 microns, as read on the taught (Column 13, line 51, “In some embodiments, for example, in a nanofluidic device, the width of the cell is 5 μm.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device including a single microfluidic device and chambers as taught by Molla et al with the network of fluidic pathways, as taught by Stinton et al, for the benefit of allowing the sensing of sample material characteristics under different experimental conditions at the same time (Stinton et al, column 18, line 44, “In some embodiments, the material characteristic of the sample material in the cells are sensed sequentially, simultaneously, and/or concurrently.”).
With regards to claim 73, the method of claim 18 is anticipated by Molla et al.
Molla et al does not explicitly disclose wherein step b. comprises flowing the aliquot of the oil composition into the porous media channel via a first oil inlet channel and a network of secondary oil inlet channels; the first oil inlet channel has a first cross-sectional area; the secondary oil inlet channels each have a second cross-sectional area; and the second cross-sectional area is less than the first cross-sectional area.
In the analogous art of microfluidic devices for fluid property measurements, Stinton et al teaches;
The claimed “flowing the aliquot of the oil composition into the porous media channel via a first oil inlet channel and a network of secondary oil inlet channels” has been read on the taught (Column 4, line 19, “…the flowing of the material through the main channel establishes a second pressure downstream from the first pressure, and wherein the second pressure is communicated to a downstream branch channel, the downstream branch channel connecting to the main channel downstream of the branch channel…”; The downstream branch channels reads on a network of secondary inlet channels; See also Column 5, line 32 teaching on branch channels; see also Figure 7A.);
Molla et al in view of Stinton et al does not explicitly disclose wherein “the first oil inlet channel has a first cross-sectional area; the secondary oil inlet channels each have a second cross-sectional area; and the second cross-sectional area is less than the first cross-sectional area.”
According to MPEP 2144.04(IV), changes in size/proportion are not sufficient to distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art, provided that the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device—see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). The specification of the instant invention does not disclose any unexpected results occurring due to the relative cross-sectional areas.
Moreover, the exact areas needed would be dependent on the properties of the test fluids and the test pressures, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as a results-dependent variable.
Accordingly, claim 73 is obvious in view of Molla et al in view of Stinton et al.
Claims 16 and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molla et al (WO 2019067319 A2, cited on the IDS submitted 01 November 2022) in view of Luo et al (Luo E, Fan Z, Hu Y, Zhao L, Wang J. “An evaluation on mechanisms of miscibility development in acid gas injection for volatile oil reservoirs.” Oil & Gas Science and Technology - Rev. IFP Energies nouvelles 74(59); 2019).
With regards to claim 16, the method of claim 1 is anticipated by Molla et al.
Molla et al additionally teaches that vaporizing and condensing steps may be performed in the taught apparatus (see [0049] – [0051]). However, Molla et al does not explicitly disclose wherein, prior to loading the porous media channel with the aliquot of the oil composition, flashing the aliquot of the oil composition into a liquid phase and a gas phase in a flash zone of the microfluidic device.
In the analogous art of miscibility measurements, Luo et al teaches;
The claimed “prior to loading the porous media channel with the aliquot of the oil composition, flashing the aliquot of the oil composition into a liquid phase and a gas phase in a flash zone of the microfluidic device” has been read on the taught (Page 3, column 2, “A specified amount of gas is added to cell 1. A flash calculation is performed in each cell when mixing takes place and thermodynamic equilibrium is attained. After mixing of the injected gas and the cell fluid, the excess volume from cell 1 is transferred to cell 2. The excess volume from cell 2 is transferred to cell 3, etc.”; Cell 1 reads on a flash zone of the microfluidic device. Adding a gas and performing a flash calculation reads on flashing the aliquot of the oil composition in a liquid and gas phase.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of claim 1 as taught by Molla et al to include the flashing step as taught by Luo et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Molla et al contains a “base” method of measuring miscibility, upon which the claimed method can be seen as an “improvement.” The prior art of Luo et al teaches a comparable method for measuring miscibility, that has been improved by including a flashed liquid/gas oil mixture as the oil composition prior to loading into downstream channels. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” method, for the predictable results of testing miscibility at different gas/liquid ratios for volatile oils.
With regards to claim 72, the method of claim 16 is obvious over Molla et al in view of Luo et al.
Molla et al does not explicitly disclose wherein flashing the aliquot of the oil composition into the liquid phase and the gas phase in the flash zone of the microfluidic device comprises flowing the aliquot of the oil composition into the porous media channel via an oil inlet channel and a feeder channel downstream of the oil inlet channel; the oil inlet channel has an oil inlet channel cross-sectional area; and the feeder channel has a feeder channel cross-sectional area that is greater than the oil inlet channel cross-sectional area.
Luo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein flashing the aliquot of the oil composition into the liquid phase and the gas phase in the flash zone of the microfluidic device comprises flowing the aliquot of the oil composition into the porous media channel via an oil inlet channel and a feeder channel downstream of the oil inlet channel” has been read on the taught (Page 3, column 2, “A specified amount of gas is added to cell 1. A flash calculation is performed in each cell when mixing takes place and thermodynamic equilibrium is attained. After mixing of the injected gas and the cell fluid, the excess volume from cell 1 is transferred to cell 2. The excess volume from cell 2 is transferred to cell 3, etc.”; Cell 1 reads on a flash zone of the microfluidic device. Adding a gas and performing a flash calculation reads on flashing the aliquot of the oil composition in a liquid and gas phase. Transferring to cell 2 reads on flowing the aliquot of the oil composition into the porous media channel via an oil inlet channel and a feeder channel downstream of the oil inlet channel. See also Figure 6, which shows the injection gas inlet into cell 1, then a downstream channel into cell 2.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of claim 1 as taught by Molla et al to include the flashing step as taught by Luo et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Molla et al contains a “base” method of measuring miscibility, upon which the claimed method can be seen as an “improvement.” The prior art of Luo et al teaches a comparable method for measuring miscibility, that has been improved by including a flashed liquid/gas oil mixture as the oil composition prior to loading into downstream channels. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” method, for the predictable results of testing miscibility at different gas/liquid ratios for volatile oils.
Molla et al an view of Luo et al does not explicitly disclose wherein “the oil inlet channel has an oil inlet channel cross-sectional area; and the feeder channel has a feeder channel cross-sectional area that is greater than the oil inlet channel cross-sectional area.”
According to MPEP 2144.04(IV), changes in size/proportion are not sufficient to distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art, provided that the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device—see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). The specification of the instant invention does not disclose any unexpected results occurring due to the relative cross-sectional areas.
Moreover, the exact areas needed would be dependent on the properties of the test fluids and the test pressures, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as a results-dependent variable.
Accordingly, claim 72 is obvious in view of Molla et al in view of Luo et al.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:30pm EST.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1797 /LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797