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 .
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 07/03/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process and a mathematical calculation; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to the statutory category of processes.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 1:
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
A method of identifying a low cost subterranean path between two points, the method comprising:
accessing a digital 3D model of an area of interest;
generating one or more paths between one or more start points and one or more end points;
assigning a cost to each of the one or more paths, the cost being based at least in part on one or more travel costs associated with one or more portions of the digital 3D model; and
at least one of:
displaying one or more of the assigned costs to a user; or
sharing one or more of the assigned costs with a non-human recipient.
The limitations “identifying a low cost subterranean path between two points” , “generating one or more paths between one or more start points and one or more end points”, “assigning a cost to each of the one or more paths”, and “sharing one or more of the assigned costs with a non-human recipient” are an abstract ideas because it is directed to a mathematical model. The limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed using mathematical equations” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Also, the limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could, mentally or on paper, observe, evaluate, assign or analyze to make the determination of a model and its output.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A method of” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“accessing a digital 3D model of an area of interest” (general field of use and data gathering– see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“displaying one or more of the assigned costs to a user” (general field of use and data gathering– see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g))
“the cost being based at least in part on one or more travel costs associated with one or more portions of the digital 3D model” (Field of Use, MPEP 2106.05(h))(Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Claim 1 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 further recites: “wherein the digital 3D model comprises a plurality of voxels and each voxel has an assigned travel cost, the assigned travel cost based at least in part on one or more geographic conditions”. These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the input that are being used to determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the one or more geographic conditions comprise at least one of: elevations and extents of soil layers; or elevations and extents of rock layers”. These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the input that are being used to determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the assigned travel cost is further based at least in part on an identifier associated with a geographic element corresponding to the voxel”. These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the input that are being used to determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the one or more paths between a given start point and a given end point are completely contained within the overlapping volume of a first and a second directional cone, the first directional cone originating at the given start point and oriented toward the given end point, and the second directional cone originating at the given end point and oriented toward the given start point”. These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the input that are being used to determined (mental observation of determining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the one or more paths are determined using at least one of Dijkstra’s Algorithm or the A-Star Algorithm”. These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the determining paths (mental observation of determining with pen and paper or math) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the cost of a given path is based on a first cost calculated from a start point to an end point and a second cost calculated from the end point to the start point”. These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the determining paths (mental observation of determining with pen and paper or math) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 recites “further comprising generating a 2D heat map, generating the 2D heat map comprising: for each voxel associated with one or more paths, calculating the sum of the inverse of the travel costs for each path associated with the voxel (mental process with pen and paper or math grouping of the abstract idea); and projecting the sum for each voxel onto a horizontal plane” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the parameters that are being considered. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 recites “further comprising determining the costs of crossing a given cross section, the determination comprising: dividing the given cross section into a 2D mesh; generating a plurality of paths between the one or more start points and the one or more end points such that at least one generated path passes through each pixel of the 2D mesh; and calculating the cost of each path” This limitation is considered to be a mental process with pen and paper, or alternatively, a math process.
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the one or more paths are between a plurality of start points and a single end point, the plurality of start points being arranged in a 2D grid within the boundaries of a given start area” The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the determining (mental observation of determining ) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 11-20 are directed to a method/process.
Claim 11 Step 2A prong 1:
The claim language is substantially similar as claim 1, except for the following claim elements/limitations: A method of identifying a low cost subterranean path, the method comprising: [only specifying start or end point, not both]
The claim does not include any additional abstract ideas from claim 1.
Claim 11 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A method of identifying a low cost subterranean path, the method comprising: [only specifying start or end point, not both]” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Claim 11 Step 2B:
The additional limitations found in claim 11, this additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more. Step 2A Prong I and Step 2B.
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 11 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 2; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 13 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 3; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 14 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 4; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 15 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 5; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 16 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 6; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 17 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 7; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 18 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 8; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 19 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 9; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 20 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 10; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 David S. Frankel, WO 2005/033739 A2, Published: 14 April 2005, (hereafter Frankel), in views of Ruben D. Uribe, WO 2014/123640 A1, Published: 14 August 2014 (hereafter Uribe).
Regarding claim 1. Frankel teaches a method of identifying a low cost subterranean path between two points (Par 137, interpreting connectivity, destination close to the source, low cost), the method comprising:
accessing a digital 3D model of an area of interest (Fig 9, segmented compartments) (Par 111, source vertex and all connected vertices and its given cost) (Par 90, 3D geologic reservoir);
generating one or more paths between one or more start points and one or more end points (Par 108, determine all shortest paths for the selected source vertices);
assigning a cost to each of the one or more paths, the cost being based at least in part on one or more travel costs associated with one or more portions of the digital 3D model (Par 138, threshold minimum cost is set to zero, maximum cost is set to a tiny value); and
at least one of:
displaying one or more of the assigned costs to a user (Par 94, displaying shortest paths, minimizes the cost, connected with minimum cost); or
Frankel does not teach sharing one or more of the assigned costs with a non-human recipient.
Ruben teaches sharing one or more of the assigned costs with a non-human recipient (Par 69, analysis cost functions to evaluate the reservoir segments) (Par 83, manipulates and transforms data into other data similarly represented as physical quantities for transmission or display devices, thus the data is transmitted to other devices (non-human)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankel to incorporate the teachings of Ruben to transmit the cost to a computer for storage because enhances the well planning process through the use of these reservoir segments (Ruben, abstract).
Regarding claim 2. Frankel and Ruben teach the method of Claim 1,
wherein the digital 3D model comprises a plurality of voxels (Frankel, Fig 4, composes compartments) (Frankel, Par 46, reservoir volume, cells) and
each voxel has an assigned travel cost, the assigned travel cost based at least in part on one or more geographic conditions (Frankel, Par 70, each edge would have an associated cost value) (Frankel, Par 95, better locations have greater amounts of oil at lower cost).
Regarding claim 3. Frankel and Ruben teach the method of Claim 2, wherein the one or more geographic conditions comprise at least one of:
elevations and extents of soil layers (Frankel, Par 95, less resistance to flow) (Frankel, Par 148, elevation that contains oil); or
elevations and extents of rock layers (Frankel, Par 58, elevation of key surfaces) (Frankel, Par 148, elevation that contain water and gas).
Regarding claim 4. Frankel and Ruben teach the method of Claim 2, wherein the assigned travel cost is further based at least in part on an identifier associated with a geographic element corresponding to the voxel (Frankel, Par 62, edge cost, reciprocal of transmissibility) (Frankel, Par 95, better locations have greater amounts of oil at lower cost).
Regarding claim 5. Frankel and Ruben teach the method of Claim 1, wherein the one or more paths between a given start point and a given end point are completely contained within the overlapping volume of a first and a second directional cone (Frankel, Par 142, cylinder of circular cross section),
the first directional cone originating at the given start point and oriented toward the given end point (Frankel, Fig 6, start and end) (Frankel, Fig 17, shortest path) (Frankel, Par 139, shortest part from source to destination), and
the second directional cone originating at the given end point and oriented toward the given start point (Frankel, Par 43, both directions, two ways of writing the same edge).
Regarding claim 6. Frankel and Ruben teach the method of Claim 1, wherein the one or more paths are determined using at least one of Dijkstra’s Algorithm (Frankel, Pare 48, claim 35, Dijkstra’s) or
the A-Star Algorithm.
Regarding claim 7. Frankel and Ruben teach the method of Claim 1, wherein the cost of a given path is based on a first cost calculated from a start point to an end point and a second cost calculated from the end point to the start point (Frankel, Par 44, determining a low cost path to at least one other vertex, designer choice to select the source and destination).
Regarding claim 8. Frankel and Ruben teach the method of Claim 1 further comprising generating a 2D heat map (Frankel, Par 68, delta (u,v)=min, projected value into the u, v,planes),
generating the 2D heat map comprising: for each voxel associated with one or more paths (Frankel, Par 90, each cell’s color determined by the value of the cell property),
calculating the sum of the inverse of the travel costs for each path associated with the voxel (Frankel, Par 68, equation W(p), shortest path cost from vertex u to v); and
projecting the sum for each voxel onto a horizontal plane (Frankel, Par 68, delta (u,v)=min, projected value into the u, v,planes).
Regarding claim 9. Frankel and Ruben teach the method of Claim 1 further comprising determining the costs of crossing a given cross section (Frankel, Fig 6, shortest path cost), the determination comprising:
dividing the given cross section into a 2D mesh (Frankel, Fig 6, edge and vertices for each path);
generating a plurality of paths between the one or more start points and the one or more end points such that at least one generated path passes through each pixel of the 2D mesh (Frankel, Fig 7, multiple paths) (Frankel, Par 68, the weight or cost of a path represented, min the cost); and
calculating the cost of each path (Frankel, Par 68, w(p)=sum from i=1…k ).
Regarding claim 10. Frankel and Ruben teach the method of Claim 1 wherein the one or more paths are between a plurality of start points and a single end point (Frankel, Par 100, shortest path between multiple sources and multiple destinations) (Frankel, Par 105, user selects the source and destination, thus the designer selects the number of sources and destination, designer choice),
the plurality of start points being arranged in a 2D grid within the boundaries of a given start area (Frankel, Par 46, the volume of interest is defined areally and vertically by the extent of the oil and gas accumulation).
Regarding claim 11. Frankel teaches a method of identifying a low cost subterranean path (Par 137, interpreting connectivity, destination close to the source, low cost), the method comprising:
[only specifying start or end point, not both] accessing a digital 3D model of an area of interest (Fig 9, segmented compartments) (Par 111, source vertex and all connected vertices and its given cost) (Par 90, 3D geologic reservoir) (Par 44, determining a low cost path to at least one other vertex, designer choice to select the source and destination);
generating one or more paths with a start point and a maximum path length (Par 61, path with least resistance is almost always longer) (Par 108, determine all shortest paths for the selected source vertices);
assigning a cost to each of the one or more paths, the cost being based at least in part on one or more travel costs associated with one or more portions of the digital 3D model (Par 138, threshold minimum cost is set to zero, maximum cost is set to a tiny value); and
at least one of:
displaying one or more of the assigned costs to a user (Par 94, displaying shortest paths, minimizes the cost, connected with minimum cost); or
Frankel does not teach sharing one or more of the assigned costs with a non-human recipient.
Ruben teaches sharing one or more of the assigned costs with a non-human recipient (Par 69, analysis cost functions to evaluate the reservoir segments) (Par 83, manipulates and transforms data into other data similarly represented as physical quantities for transmission or display devices, thus the data is transmitted to other devices (non-human)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankel to incorporate the teachings of Ruben to transmit the cost to a computer for storage because enhances the well planning process through the use of these reservoir segments (Ruben, abstract).
Regarding claim 12. Frankel and Ruben teach the method of Claim 11, wherein the digital 3D model comprises a plurality of voxels (Frankel, Fig 4, composes compartments) (Frankel, Par 46, reservoir volume, cells) and
each voxel has an assigned travel cost, the assigned travel cost based at least in part on one or more geographic conditions (Frankel, Par 70, each edge would have an associated cost value) (Frankel, Par 95, better locations have greater amounts of oil at lower cost).
Regarding claim 13. Frankel and Ruben teach the method of Claim 12, wherein the one or more geographic conditions comprise at least one of:
elevations and extents of soil layers (Frankel, Par 95, less resistance to flow) (Frankel, Par 148, elevation that contains oil); or
elevations and extents of rock layers (Frankel, Par 58, elevation of key surfaces) (Frankel, Par 148, elevation that contain water and gas).
Regarding claim 14. Frankel and Ruben teach the method of Claim 12, wherein the assigned travel cost is further based at least in part on an identifier associated with a geographic element corresponding to the voxel (Frankel, Par 62, edge cost, reciprocal of transmissibility) (Frankel, Par 95, better locations have greater amounts of oil at lower cost).
Regarding claim 15. Frankel and Ruben teach the method of Claim 11, wherein at least one of the one or more paths are completely contained within the volume of a directional cone (Frankel, Par 142, cylinder of circular cross section),
the directional cone originating at the start point and at least initially oriented in an initial path direction (Frankel, Fig 6, start and end) (Frankel, Fig 17, shortest path) (Frankel, Par 139, shortest part from source to destination).
Regarding claim 16. Frankel and Ruben teach the method of Claim 11, wherein the one or more paths are determined using at least one of Dijkstra’s Algorithm (Frankel, Pare 48, claim 35, Dijkstra’s) or
the A-Star Algorithm.
Regarding claim 17. Frankel and Ruben teach the method of Claim 11, wherein the maximum path length is based at least in part on a maximum construction cost (Frankel, Par 101, user chooses, thresholding on maximum cost) (Frankel, Par 129, user control threshold, maximum value on the path cost).
Regarding claim 18. Frankel and Ruben teach the method of Claim 11 further comprising generating a 2D heat map (Frankel, Par 68, delta (u,v)=min, projected value into the u, v,planes),
generating the 2D heat map comprising: for each voxel associated with one or more paths (Frankel, Par 90, each cell’s color determined by the value of the cell property),
calculating the sum of the inverse of the travel costs for each path associated with the voxel (Frankel, Par 68, equation W(p), shortest path cost from vertex u to v); and
projecting the sum for each voxel onto a horizontal plane (Frankel, Par 68, delta (u,v)=min, projected value into the u, v,planes).
Regarding claim 19. Frankel and Ruben teach the method of Claim 11 further comprising determining the costs of crossing a given cross section (Frankel, Fig 6, shortest path cost), the determination comprising:
dividing the given cross section into a 2D mesh (Frankel, Fig 6, edge and vertices for each path);
generating a plurality of paths from the one or more start points such that at least one generated path passes through each pixel of the 2D mesh (Frankel, Fig 7, multiple paths) (Frankel, Par 68, the weight or cost of a path represented, min the cost); and
calculating the cost of each path (Frankel, Par 68, w(p)=sum from i=1…k ).
Regarding claim 20. Frankel and Ruben teach the method of Claim 11 further comprising a plurality of start points arranged in a 2D grid within the boundaries of a given start area (Frankel, Par 46, the volume of interest is defined areally and vertically by the extent of the oil and gas accumulation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on PTO-892, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jose Sequeira, WO 2012/027020 A1, discloses iteratively adjusted to create successive paths until at least one of the successive paths is within the accepted constraint. Further it discloses, costs associated with drilling, casing, according to different depths.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL JAVIER CALLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571)-272-3676. 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.
/A.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
