DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Final Office Action is in response to Application Serial 18/148,495. In response to Examiner’s action, mail dated April 1, 2026, Applicant submitted arguments and amendments that are mail dated May 14, 2026. Applicant amended claims 1, 9, and 14. Applicant added new claim 18. Claims 2, 6, 7, and 10 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-18 are pending, see below.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 06, 2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1,3-5, 8-9, 11-18 are pending in this application. The claims 1, 9, and 14 are amended. Claim 18 is new.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the pending claims are not persuasive. The claims 1, 9, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, see below.
Regarding prior art, an updated search was completed. Applicant amendments further narrowed the claims. The added new claim 18 further narrows claim 1, which it depends. Although additional prior art is identified, the claims remain allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the revised rejections. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below.
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections
On pages 11-21 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, the Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of the independent claims 1, 9, and 14 and those claims depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant submits
Step 1: Claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Applicant notes that, as acknowledged by the office Action, independent claims 1, 9, and 14 are directed to a method, and Satisfy Step 1.
Examiner respectfully agrees. At Step 1 the claims are directed to a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims are not directed to a judicial exception.
Applicant respectfully disagrees with Examiner’s Step 2A, prong one analysis.
Applicant submits that the interpretation of claim 1 as directed to a mathematical process is an overbroad characterization of claim 1 that fails to consider the claim as a whole.
Applicant points to instant specification [086] and [0178] to support that claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Instant specification [086] describes “simultaneous processing, analysis, or solving considered together”. Instant specification [0178] discuss “parallel processing” that provides “reduced resource consumption”. Applicant requests that the rejection be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s Step 2A, prong one arguments. The pending claims in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of identifying the cost of facility and pipeline placement based on planning scenarios.
The claims recite receiving geological data, identifying planning scenarios related to well placement. The claims recites generating a cost map, generating a cost graph, and using planning scenarios that use algorithms (e.g., a particle swarm optimization). The claims 1, 3-5, 8 recite a mathematical concept which is an abstract concept.
The claims are using a mathematical model to conduct the scenario planning. The claims are using the data as input into the mathematical model. The planning scenarios use particle swarm. The output of the model are costs for the hydrocarbon site.
The claims recite a mathematical model, and thus, the claims recite an abstract concept – determining well placement based on the planning scenarios that use input data (e.g., geological data), and algorithm, and output (e.g., costs). The claims recite an abstract idea that is grouped as an abstract concept. The claims recite an abstract idea, so the claims are directed to an abstract concept.
Additionally, the claims are planning scenarios for a commercial activity – well placement. Petroleum reservoir modeling and hydrocarbon extraction planning is/ are a commercial activity. To establish the commercial practice, Examiner points the Applicant to the prior art Wikipedia Petroleum reservoir, and Doussary (2016, Well placement optimization using imperialist competitive algorithms). The claims recite a commercial activity, therefore, the claims recite an abstract concept that is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity.
The pending claims recite a mathematical concept and a certain method of organizing human activity, therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first prong of Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application of the alleged judicial exception.
Applicant respectfully disagrees with Examiner’s Step 2A, prong two analysis.
Applicant submits the claims are integrated into a practical application. Applicant points to instant specification [0192], [0176], and Subject Matter Eligibility Example 40 to traverse that the claims are directed toward improved systems, methods, and tangible computer-readable mediums that integrate multiple real-world computing to generate pipeline placements.
Applicant points to instant specification [0192] that the claims, when considered as a whole, does more than merely recite mathematical concept. The claims are using parallel processing, Euclidian distances or A* algorithms.
Applicant points to instant specification [0176] discuss different stage modeling.
Applicant submits the claims are similar to Subject Matter Eligibility Example 40, Netflow.
Applicant traverses the nodes are used in the cost graph.
Applicant submits the claims provide a specific, identifiable improvement to the efficiency and accuracy of computer technology which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter, and requests, that the rejection be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s Step 2A, prong two arguments. Examiner submit the claims are reciting a complex mathematical algorithm, and the claims are using a processor to conduct the complex calculation. Examiner submits the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims recite a mathematical computation and a commercial activity that is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract ideas a on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. – See MPEP 2106.05 (f).
Examiner submits although the claims recite identifying available computational resources, the available computational resources including computing time and processing power, this recitation of computational resources including computing time and processing power describes a computation. As recited, using the broadest reasonable interpretations, the available computational resources could be a generic name for the resources/variables such as: the well placement, facility placement, or pipe that are used in the mathematical computation. In another view, the computation resource could be a computer that is used to conduct the mathematical calculation. The claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The cost graph and nodes are merely outputs of the mathematical calculation. The relationship of the nodes visually illustrate a mathematical correlation. This can be completed with pen and paper. Regarding a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm, Euclidian distances, or A* algorithms these are complex mathematical algorithms, and thus, directed to a judicial exception. As recited, PSO is an algorithm that uses the computer to complete the calculations. This is MPEP 2106.05 (f).
Examiner contends the Applicant’s recitation of computational resources is broad and high level. Examiner submits, the Applicant’s claims recite computational variables and metrics/data and use computational resources, computing time, and processing power. Examiner interpreted the Applicant’s recitation of computational resources and data of processing power measurements as mathematical concepts, and thus, are abstract concepts. The claim are improving the speed of the mathematical calculation using a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding SME Guidance Example 40, adaptive monitoring of network traffic data, is rooted in computer networking. In Example 40, the claims continuously monitor network conditions (e.g., delay, packet loss, jitter). The additional elements (e.g., jitter packet) are specific to computer technology. Furthermore, the Example 40 claims analyze abnormal conditions, which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. The adaptive monitoring that varied data collection based on detected abnormalities, taught in Example 40, is not disclosed in the Applicant’s claims nor specification.
The instant application claims are not similar to Example 40 teaching improvements to internet traffic, because the Applicant is using mathematical calculations to determine a facility placement, for the purposes of planning optimized reservoir modeling to optimize costs/production.
The Applicant’s Step 2A, prong two arguments are not persuasive. The claims do not recite a practical application. The claims do not recite an improvement that is rooted in technology. See explanation above.
Revised Step 2B: Claims provide an inventive concept.
Applicant respectfully disagrees with Examiner’s Step 2B analysis.
Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, when viewed as a whole, amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
The combination of elements when viewed as a whole, provides significant benefits that provide an improvement to layout determination technology. Indeed, as discussed in the Application, the "present embodiments provide a more efficient analysis that reduces the amount of processing power employed by computing systems tasked to identify suitable components, component placement, and connectivity components within a hydrocarbon site. In other words, other optimization schemes are limited by certain memory and computational parameters of existing computing systems to provide useful facilities recommendations for hydrocarbon site planning operations." Application [0086]. Such improvements in the modularity and flexibility of the planning systems facilitate improved solutions that are capable of being identified using the available computational resources. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 does not simply recite subject matter within the judicial exceptions without significantly more and, therefore, is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 is subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant further submits that, as claims 9 and 14 have been amended similarly to claim 1, such claims, and the claims depending therefrom, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter for at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 14 and those claims depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claims when considered as a whole are merely applying a computer to the abstract concept. - See MPEP 2106.05 (f). The Applicant’s claims are applying a computer and computative values gathered from nodes or logical layers to calculate scenarios that are optimizing planning scenarios, as explained in step 2A prong 2. See above.
Regarding the argument of an improvement, although the claims are improving costs, they are not improving a solution that is rooted in technology, and would amount to significantly more. The graphing output is known in the mathematics and the reservoir modeling. The claims describe improving the output, which is data. The claims do not amount to significantly more at Step 2B.
Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments persuasive. The claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are not integrated into a practical application, the claims do not amount significantly more. The claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, see below.
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, 3-5, 8, 18 are method.
Claims 9, 11-13 are method.
Claims 14-17 are method.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim 1 recites, “… receiving, … , input data comprising geological data associated with an area, and an indication of … to be placed in the layout, … comprising a plurality of logical layers arranged hierarchically, each logical layer including … , a first logical layer of the plurality of logical layers…, a second logical layer of the plurality of logical layers including … between two logical layers of the plurality of logical layers, and one or more … trajectories between … , wherein the layout includes a number … in each of the plurality of logical layers and a location of … in each of the plurality of logical layers, wherein the location of … is random within an associated layer of the plurality of logical layers; identifying available … ; identifying, for each of a plurality of planning scenarios to generate the layout based on the plurality of logical layers, a plurality of computational complexities to determine the layout using an associated planning scenario, wherein the plurality of planning scenarios are pre-determined and include …placement of…trajectory design of the one or more well trajectories, and wherein the plurality of planning scenarios include :a first planning scenario in which … design are performed sequentially, wherein the first planning scenario has a first computational complexity ;a second planning scenario …. are performed simultaneously and sequentially with the … placement and the … trajectory design, wherein the second planning scenario has a second computational complexity greater than the first computational complexity; a third planning scenario in which the … placement, the … placement, and the … trajectory design are performed simultaneously and sequentially with the … placement, wherein the third planning scenario has a third computational complexity greater than the second computational complexity; and a fourth planning scenario in which the … placement, the … placement, the … placement, and the … trajectory design are performed simultaneously, wherein the fourth planning scenario has a fourth computational complexity greater than the third computational complexity; selecting, … and based on the available computational resources and one of the plurality of computational complexities that is less than the available computational resources, one of the plurality of planning scenarios to implement in determining the layout; generating a cost map for the … site, the cost map including a plurality of physical layers, a first physical layer of the plurality of physical layers including the geological data, a second physical layer of the plurality of physical layers including topological information and a cost estimate for the …, and the …trajectory design; using the cost map, generating a cost graph … based on the topological information, the cost graph including a gridded map of the plurality of nodes, each … of the plurality of … being connected to an adjacent … of the plurality of … via a connection edge annotating a sub-cost associated with a corresponding area; in response to selecting the third planning scenario of the plurality of planning scenarios, applying a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm to the cost graph, the plurality of logical layers, and the plurality of physical layers to generate a first solution, wherein the PSO algorithm iteratively processes, using a plurality of loops including a major loop and a plurality of minor loops within the major loop, wherein the major loop includes … and the plurality of minor loops include …, a plurality of particles to arrive at a convergence layout based on the plurality of particles,… particle of the plurality of particles representative of a potential layout, wherein the plurality of minor loops are processed in parallel … and the first solution includes the convergence layout, and wherein the potential layout of each particle of the plurality of particles is determined by: based on a first algorithm, the geological data, and the cost map, determining … for the one or more wells via the major loop; and after determining …, and based on a second algorithm using the cost map, independent of determining the set of… placements, simultaneously determining, via the plurality of minor loops processed in parallel: …based on a third algorithm and a graphical topology of the geological data weighted by costs associated … at respective portions of the area ; determining whether the first solution is viable; responsive to the first solution being viable, retrieving updated cost factors; updating the cost map to an updated cost map based on the updated cost factors; using the updated cost map, generating an updated cost graph for the hydrocarbon production site; and responsive to the updated cost factors and the first solution being viable, selecting the fourth planning scenario and simultaneously updating … based on the updated cost map, resulting in an updated solution.” Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 18 in view of the claim limitations, the claims recite the abstract idea of identifying the cost of facility and pipeline placement based on planning scenarios, and thus, the claims 1, 3-5, 8, 18 recite a mathematical concept, therefore claims 1, 3-5, 8, 18 are directed to a judicial exception under the first prong of Step 2A.
Claim 9 recites, “… … receiving, …, input data comprising geological data associated with an area and an indication of … to be placed in the layout, the set of components comprising a plurality of logical layers arranged hierarchically, each logical layer including …, a first logical layer of the plurality of logical layers including…, a second logical layer of the plurality of logical layers … between two logical layers of the plurality of logical layers, wherein the layout includes a number of … in each of the plurality of logical layers and a location of … in each of the plurality of logical layers, wherein the location of … is random within an associated layer of the plurality of logical layers; identifying available computational resources for a first solution, the available computational resources including computing time and processing power; generating a cost map for …, the cost map including a plurality of physical layers, a first layer of the plurality of physical layers including the geological data, a second physical layer of the plurality of physical layers including topological information and a cost estimate … ; using the cost map, generating a cost graph for the hydrocarbon production site based on the topological information, the cost graph including a gridded map of the plurality of nodes, each node of the plurality of nodes being connected to an adjacent node of the plurality of nodes via a connection edge annotating a sub-cost associated with a corresponding area; selecting, based … and a plurality of computational complexities of a plurality of planning scenarios, a first selected planning scenario of the plurality of planning scenarios; using the first selected planning scenario of the plurality of planning scenarios and the cost map, applying a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm to the cost graph, the plurality of logical layers, and the plurality of physical layers to generate the first solution, wherein the PSO algorithm iteratively processes, using a plurality of loops including a major loop and a plurality of minor loops within the major loop, wherein the major loop includes the …placement and the plurality of minor loops include … placement, … plurality of particles to arrive at a convergence layout based on the plurality of particles, each particle of the plurality of particles representative of a potential layout, wherein the plurality of minor loops are processed in parallel … and wherein each particle is determined by simultaneously determining …placements … and a set of … placements … based on the geological data, the indication …, and a first algorithm; determining whether the first solution is viable; responsive to the first solution being viable, retrieving updated cost factors; updating the cost map to an updated cost map based on the updated cost factors; and using the updated cost map, generating an updated cost graph … ;responsive to the updated cost factors and the first solution being viable, selecting a second selected planning scenario and simultaneously updating … placements, the set of … trajectories, and … placements based on the updated cost map. .…”. Claims 9-13 in view of the claim limitations, the claims recite an abstract idea of identifying the cost of facility and pipeline placement based on planning scenarios, and thus, the claims 9-13 recite a mathematical concept, therefore claims 9-13 are directed to a judicial exception under the first prong of Step 2A.
The claim 14 recites, “… receiving, … , input data comprising geological data associated with an area and an indication of … to be placed in the layout, … comprising a plurality of logical layers arranged hierarchically, each logical layer including …, a first logical layer of the plurality of logical layers including one or more wells, a second logical layer of the plurality of logical layers including … between two logical layers of the plurality of logical layers, wherein the layout includes a number of the plurality of nodes in each of the plurality of logical layers and a location of each of the plurality of nodes in each of the plurality of logical layers, wherein the location of each of the plurality of nodes is random within an associated layer of the plurality of logical layers; identifying available computational resources for a first solution, the available computational resources including computing time…; and generating a cost map for …, the cost map including a plurality of physical layers, a first layer of the plurality of physical layers including the geological data, a second physical layer of the plurality of physical layers including topological information and a cost estimate for … placement, … placement, … placement, and … trajectory design; using the cost map, generating a cost graph … based on the topological information, the cost graph including a gridded map …. being connected … via a connection edge annotating a sub-cost associated with a corresponding area, wherein the connection edge with the adjacent node is directional and based the … placement… ; selecting, based on the available computational resources and a plurality of computational complexities of a plurality of planning scenarios, a first selected planning scenario of the plurality of planning scenarios; using the first selected planning scenario of the plurality of planning scenarios and the cost map, applying a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm to the cost graph, the plurality of logical layers, and the plurality of physical layers to generate the first solution, wherein the PSO algorithm iteratively processes, using a plurality of loops including a major loop and a plurality of minor loops within the major loop, wherein the major loop includes the well placement and the plurality of minor loops include the … placement, the … placement, and the … trajectory design, a plurality of particles to arrive at a convergence layout based on the plurality of particles, each particle of the plurality of particles representative of a potential layout, wherein the plurality of minor loops are processed …, and wherein each particle is determined by simultaneously determining a set of … placements … based on the geological data, the indication of …, and a first algorithm; determining whether the first solution is viable; responsive to the first solution being viable, retrieving updated cost factors; updating the cost map to an updated cost map based on the updated cost factors; and using the updated cost map, generating an updated cost graph … ;responsive to the updated cost factors and the first solution being viable, selecting a second selected planning scenario and simultaneously updating the set of … placements, the set of … placements, the set of … trajectories, and the set of … placements based on the updated cost map…”. Claims 14-17 in view of the claim limitations recite an abstract idea of identifying the cost of facility and pipeline placement based on planning scenarios , and thus, the claims 14-17 recite a mathematical concept, therefore claims 14-17 are directed to a judicial exception under the first prong of Step 2A.
Examiner submits the planning of hydrocarbon sites is a commercial activity, which is a certain method of organizing human activity.
The claims recite mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activity, therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception at Step 2A prong one.
This judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims 1, 9, and 14 recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of:
“A method for determining a layout for a hydrocarbon production site, comprising”
“via a processor”,
“a set of components”,
“a plurality of nodes”,
“one or more wells,”
“layers including two or more facilities, one or more pipelines”,
“the one or more wells and at least one of the two or more facilities”,
“a number of the plurality of nodes”,
“computational resources, the available computational resources”,
“processing power”,
“a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm”,
“well placement”,
” facility placement”,
“pipeline placement”,
“parallel processing on a multiprocessor”;
however, when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05 (f)
Examiner contends the Applicant’s recitation of computational resources is broad and high level. Examiner submits, the Applicant’s claims recite computational variables and metrics/data and use computational resources, computing time, and processing power. As recited these elements are data. Examiner interpreted the Applicant’s recitation of computational resources and data of processing power measurements as mathematical concepts, and thus, are abstract concepts. Examiner acknowledges a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm is math.
Regarding well placement, pipeline placement, and facility placement, these additional elements are variables used in the complex computation.
Regarding a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm, which is a complex mathematical algorithm, the claims recite a mathematical concept. As recited, PSO is an algorithm that uses the computer to complete the calculations.
Regarding the limitations “… a major loop and a plurality of minor loops within the major loop, wherein the major…”, this further supports Examiner’s argument of the claims reciting, a complex mathematical calculation. A complex mathematical calculation does not indicate the PSO algorithm is integrated into a practical application. The claims recite using a computer to apply the judicial exception – mathematical concept.
The dependent claims do not recite additional elements beyond the additional elements that are recited in the independent claims.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05 f – mere instructions to Apply an Exception).
At step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Although the claims disclose a complex computation in the technical field of resource mineral production, specifically, using hydrocarbon facility placement, the claims broadly recite the use computational resources and the use of a particle swarm algorithm using variables for planning scenarios. The claims are not receiving real-time input from the actual additional elements in the field during operation and correcting the scenario real-time. Instead, the claims recite the additional elements (i.e., well placement, pipeline placement) as data used within the computational resources and the use of a particle swarm algorithm to produce a cost objective. A cost objective is a business objective which is an abstract idea that is achieved through a mathematical calculation. The use of a processer to complete the complex computation resulting in a cost does not amount to significantly more at Step 2B.
Examiner concludes that the additional elements in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea based on findings that each element merely performs the same function (s) in combination as each element performs separately. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-18 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ghorayeb (WO-2023/014719 A1).
Dossary (2016, Well placement optimization using imperialist competitive algorithm).
Sequeira (WO-2012027020 A1).
SARMA (CA 2715942-A1).
Wikipedia – Reservoir modeling retrieved 8/9/2026
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEA LABOGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571-270- 5396. 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.
/THEA LABOGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights