DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-5 are currently presented for Examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
a. Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “conversing producing wells into water injection wells every other well when the comprehensive water cut of the reservoirs reaches 90%, that is, conversing the original line of producing wells into the producing wells and the water injection wells arranged alternately and claim 5 recites “converse producing wells into water injection wells every other well when the comprehensive water cut of the reservoirs reaches 90%, that is, converse the original line of producing wells into the producing wells and the water injection wells arranged alternately”. Spec uses converting for conversing and convert for converse see para [0041] and [0101]. Appropriate correction is required since the claim language is unclear due to incorrect terminology. For the examination purpose, Examiner interpret this as “converting” in view of spec.
b. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites
PNG
media_image1.png
280
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Spec uses X=average value of n water flooding recovery (see para [0086-0087]). Appropriate correction is required since the claim language is unclear due to inconsistent mathematical notation.
c. Claim 1 and 5 recites for equation It recites “df represents the fault block density, block/km2”. The specification para [0044] inconsistently defines parameter df, alternatively referring to fault density and fault block density, with inconsistent units, creating ambiguity regarding claim scope.
d. The claim 1 and 5 have numerous issues with antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests amending the claims such that the first recitation of each distinct element uses articles such as “a”/”an”, later recitations referring back to the same distinct element uses articles such as “the”/”said”, to use disambiguating modifiers (e.g., first, second, etc.) when there are multiple distinct elements with the same base term, and that the use of modifiers for each distinct element is kept consistent. Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples of these issues: “the required production dynamic parameters”. Applicant is urged to address these issues in the response to this office action, wherein amendments that establish an antecedent basis will overcome these grounds of rejection.
e. Claim 1 is objected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed computer readable medium is not limited to statutory subject matter. Spec para [0008] and [0062]- “…comprises a computer readable medium operable on a computer with memory”. Because the claim/specification does not limit the medium to non-transitory computer readable medium, the claim reasonably encompasses transitory propagating signals, which are non-statutory subject matter. For the examination purpose, Examiner consider this as non-transitory computer readable medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, First Paragraph
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 5 recites the following components “a fault block reservoir water flooding recovery influencing factor determining circuit”, “a fault block reservoir water flooding recovery master parameter screening circuit”, “a fault block reservoir water flooding recovery and master parameter single-factor correlation determining circuit”, “a multi-factor orthogonal experimental scheme designing circuit”, “an experimental scheme whole-process water flooding optimizing circuit”, “a fault block reservoir water flooding recovery prediction model establishing circuit” and “a fault block reservoir water flooding recovery calculating circuit ….”. Specification do not provide disclosure for this different circuits. The specification describes implementation using a computer readable medium and program instructions executed by a computer see para [0008], but does not reasonably convey possession of specifically recites “circuits” in claim 5. Thus, the written description fails to disclose the above circuits to carry out these specifically claimed functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “A method for predicting water flooding recovery of fault block reservoirs considering a whole process optimization, comprising a computer readable medium operable on a computer with memory for the method for predicting the water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoirs.” The claim is presented as a method (process) while simultaneously reciting a computer readable medium comprising program instruction, which is an article of manufacture. Also, the specification para [0008] and [0062] does not provide direction where it belongs. It is not clear whether it is a method (process) claim or computer readable medium claim (an article of manufacture). For the examination purpose, Examiner consider this as a method and CRM claim. Also see the claim objection under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed computer readable medium (CRM) is not limited to statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 and 5 recites “allowable range of parameters in fault block reservoir field”. The term “allowable range” in claim 1and 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “allowable range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the exact scope of the claim, leading to a lack of precise boundaries, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 and 5 recites “reservoirs of the same type”. The term “same type” in claim 1 and 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “same type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the exact scope of the claim, leading to a lack of precise boundaries, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-4 depend on claim 1 and do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies of claim 1, and thus, claims 2-4 are rejected for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1 as a result.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process and mathematical concepts) without significantly more.
(Step 1) Is the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims: 1-4 are directed to process or method, which falls into the one of the statutory category.
Claim: 5 is directed to system or device, which falls into the one of the statutory category.
(Step 2A) (Prong 1) Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? (Judicially recognized exceptions)?
Claim 1 and 5 recites
A method or system for predicting water flooding recovery of fault block reservoirs considering a whole process optimization, comprising the following steps:
(1) determining influencing factors in water flooding recovery of fault block reservoirs
determining reservoir static physical parameters and production dynamic parameters in combination with field production data, and determining fault block characteristic parameters affecting the water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoirs based on fault block reservoir characteristics and actual development of the reservoirs; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. A person sitting at a desk with a notebook can independently collect geological reports, combine them with field production figures, and use their evaluation or judgment to determine which reservoir factors influence water flooding recovery)
(2) screening master parameters of the water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoirs
changing values of each of the influencing factors using single-factor analysis method, calculating the water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoirs by using numerical simulators of water flooding, analyzing significance of the influencing factors with a variance D as an evaluating criterion for primary and secondary influencing factors, wherein the greater the variance D is, the higher the significance of the influencing factors is, and selecting the influencing factors with variances greater than 1 as master parameters of the water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoirs; (With the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited features contains steps people go through in their minds (or using pen and paper since it includes evaluation or judgment), or by mathematical calculation (see claim 3-Variance calculation are “within the realm of abstract ideas. So it falls under the combination of mental process and mathematical concepts of abstract ideas For example, a person can evaluate and determine whether a factor is more important than another by simply looking at its variance value and deciding, which is an abstract "mental step" easily performed using pen and paper.)
(3) determining a single-factor correlation between the water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoirs and the master parameters
determining a correlation between the water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoirs and each of the master parameters using non-linear regression method, wherein the correlation comprises power function relationship, logarithmic function relationship, and polynomial function relationship; (With the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited features contains steps people go through in their minds (or using pen and paper since it includes evaluation or judgment), or by mathematical relationship (see claim 4) are “within the realm of abstract ideas. So, it falls under the combination of mental process and mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. For example, a geologist reviewing water flooding data can mathematically evaluate the numbers, plot the results, and identify the exact same logarithmic or polynomial curve-fitting correlations by hand. Because the claim simply performs mathematical calculations and mental observations)
(4) designing multi-factor orthogonal experimental schemes based on the master parameters
determining the number of levels and values of each of the master parameters in combination with allowable range of parameters in fault block reservoir field, and selecting an orthogonal experimental design table, (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. For example, a person in a fault block reservoir field can sit down with a textbook and a piece of paper to decide that an oil extraction variable has three allowable ranges (levels) and simply select a corresponding orthogonal array from a standard statistical book to organize their testing variables.)
a specific implementation process of step (4) comprising:
firstly, determining the upper and lower limits of values of parameters required for orthogonal experiment analysis based on distribution intervals of the reservoir static physical parameters and fault block characteristic parameters determined in step (1) obtained from field tests; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. A person can simply write down the parameter ranges simply by looking at field test data and applying your judgment to establish the minimums and maximums)
secondly, determining the upper and lower limits of values of the required production dynamic parameters according to distribution intervals of the production dynamic parameter used in developed reservoirs of the same type, taking several levels for each of the parameters in the orthogonal experiment analysis, and uniformly sampling values of each of the levels between the upper and lower limits of the values of each of the parameters; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Because determining limits, choosing levels, and sampling between them are just mathematical or statistical calculations using rules and data, they are considered mental steps) and
finally, determining the orthogonal experimental design table and compiling the multi- factor orthogonal experimental schemes according to the determined number of the master parameters and several values of the levels of each of the parameters; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. A human can consult an orthogonal array design table and map their specific factors to the standard template to create a multi-factor experimental table.)
(5) performing a whole-process water flooding optimization for each of the orthogonal experimental schemes with the maximum water flooding recovery as a target, optimizing separate-layer injection and production at the moment of production, optimizing well-type conversion when comprehensive water cut of the reservoirs reaches 90%, and optimizing injection and production adjustment when the comprehensive water cut of the reservoirs reaches 95%,( The claim merely lists steps of mathematical optimization and conditional human decisions ("optimizing when water cut reaches 90%"). With the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited features contain steps people go through in their minds (or using pen and paper since it includes evaluation or judgment), or by mathematical calculations are “within the realm of abstract ideas. So it falls under the mental process or mathematical concepts of abstract ideas.)
a specific implementation process of step (5) comprising: dividing multi-layer reservoirs into two sets of layer series of development longitudinally when water flooding is put into production according to the orthogonal experimental schemes for each of the fault block reservoirs, and specifically, calculating different combinations of the multi-layer reservoirs by using numerical simulators of water flooding reservoirs, wherein the combination of the multi-layer reservoirs corresponding to the scheme with the maximum water flooding recovery is a preferred implementation of the separate-layer injection and production; (With the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited features contains steps people go through in their minds (or using pen and paper since it includes evaluation or judgment), or by mathematical calculation are “within the realm of abstract ideas. So it falls under the mental process or mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. The claim describes a human activity: mentally organizing a reservoir's data, applying a statistical approach (orthogonal experimental design), and doing the mathematical evaluations to choose the best result.)
conversing producing wells into water injection wells every other well when the comprehensive water cut of the reservoirs reaches 90%, that is, conversing the original line of producing wells into the producing wells and the water injection wells arranged alternately; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas)
and
calculating injection rates of each of the water injection wells and liquid producing rates of each of the producing wells as adjustable variables by using the numerical simulators of water flooding reservoirs when the comprehensive water cut of the reservoirs reaches 95%, wherein the combination of the injection rates of each of the water injection wells and the liquid producing rates of each of the producing wells corresponding to the scheme with the maximum water flooding recovery is a preferred injection and production scheme.; (The claim estates: Calculate variables until find the best mathematical outcome (maximum recovery). Comparing scenarios and selecting the "maximum" is a fundamental mathematical/economic principle. With the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited features contain steps people go through in their minds (or using pen and paper since it includes evaluation or judgment), or by mathematical calculation are “within the realm of abstract ideas. So, it falls under the mental process or mathematical concepts of abstract ideas.)
(6) establishing a prediction model for the water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoirs
determining a formula of a correlation model of the water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoirs and all the master parameters according to the single-factor correlation between the water flooding recovery and the master parameters determined in step (3), determining unknown parameters of the formula of the correlation model of the water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoirs and all the master parameters using least square fitting method based on results of the whole process optimization of orthogonal experiments, and further obtaining a prediction model for the water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoirs, the correlation model of the water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoirs and all the master parameters being shown in formula (V):
R=a1ln(A) + a2 log(PV) + a3 ln(po) + a4(df) + askb + a6Vm+ a7V2 + a8Vr-+a9 (V)
where R represents the recovery, %; A represents the fault block area, km2; PV represents the production multiples; o represents the underground crude oil viscosity, mPa-s; df represents the fault block density, block/km2; k represents the permeability, 10-3pm2; V1m represents the inter-layer permeability ratio; Vr represents the variation coefficient of permeability; and a, represents undetermined coefficient of the functional relationship with a subscript n=0, 1, 2, 3...;(With the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited features contains mathematical calculation/equations that are “within the realm of abstract ideas. So, it falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract ideas.)
and
(7) calculating the water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoirs calculating the water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoirs according to the prediction model for the water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoirs established in step (6). (With the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited features contain mathematical calculation/equation see formula (V). So, it falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract ideas.)
(8) comparing the predicted water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoir calculated in step (7) with the current actual water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoir obtained in an oilfield, determining a potential enhanced oil recovery by continuing water flooding for the fault block reservoir and exploiting crude oils. (The claim requires comparing a predicted number to an actual number. Comparing two numbers is a classic mental process that humans by continuing the water injection. With the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited features contain steps people go through in their minds (or using pen and paper since it includes evaluation or judgment), or by mathematical calculation are “within the realm of abstract ideas. So, it falls under the mental process or mathematical concepts of abstract ideas)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 and 5 recites the additional elements of “collecting geological information of fault block reservoirs in a target block” is a mere data gathering step and thus it falls under insignificant pre-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element of a computer readable medium operable on a computer with memory for the method for predicting the water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoirs, and comprising program instructions for executing in claim 1 is merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); The additional elements of a fault block reservoir water flooding recovery influencing factor determining circuit; a fault block reservoir water flooding recovery master parameter screening circuit; a fault block reservoir water flooding recovery and master parameter single-factor correlation determining circuit; a multi-factor orthogonal experimental scheme designing circuit; an experimental scheme whole-process water flooding optimizing circuit; a fault block reservoir water flooding recovery prediction model establishing circuit; and a fault block reservoir water flooding recovery calculating circuit in claim 5 are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); These 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.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 and 13 recites the additional elements of “collecting geological information of fault block reservoirs in a target block” which is a mere data gathering steps and thus it falls under insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((See MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)(i))) 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014). ). The additional element of a computer readable medium operable on a computer with memory for the method for predicting the water flooding recovery of the fault block reservoirs, and comprising program instructions for executing in claim 1 is merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); The additional elements of a fault block reservoir water flooding recovery influencing factor determining circuit; a fault block reservoir water flooding recovery master parameter screening circuit; a fault block reservoir water flooding recovery and master parameter single-factor correlation determining circuit; a multi-factor orthogonal experimental scheme designing circuit; an experimental scheme whole-process water flooding optimizing circuit; a fault block reservoir water flooding recovery prediction model establishing circuit; and a fault block reservoir water flooding recovery calculating circuit in claim 5 are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Thus, the claims 1 and 5 are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 further recites wherein in step (1), the selected reservoir static physical parameters comprise underground crude oil viscosity o, effective formation thickness h, permeability k, inter-layer permeability ratio Vm, and variation coefficient of permeability Vr; the selected production dynamic parameters comprise the well spacing density wa and produced volume multiples PV; and the selected fault block reservoir characteristic parameters comprise the fault block area A, fault block density df, and water body multiple N. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgement or observation that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. A person sitting at a desk with a notebook can independently collect geological reports, combine them with field production figures, and use their evaluation or judgment to determine which reservoir factors influence water flooding recovery. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 further recites wherein the variance D in step (2) is calculated by formula (I):
PNG
media_image2.png
50
229
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where D represents the variance; n represents the number of samples; Xi represents the water flooding recovery corresponding to an ith value of a certain influencing factor, %; and X1 represents an average value of n water flooding recovery, %. With the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited features contain steps through mathematical calculation or by mathematical formula are “within the realm of abstract ideas. So, it falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 further recites wherein the power function relationship, logarithmic function relationship, and polynomial function relationship in step (3) are shown in formula (II), formula (III), and formula (IV), respectively:
PNG
media_image3.png
261
645
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited features contain steps through mathematical calculation or by mathematical formula are “within the realm of abstract ideas. So, it falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims require the use of a specific equation for the steps 4-6 with the equation (V) for predicting water flooding recovery of fault block reservoirs. The closest prior art is:
Thakur et al. (US 20100300682 A1) discusses predicting the performance of a reservoir system with application of an improved oil recovery process or an enhanced oil recovery process.
Hou et al. (Pub. No.: US 20200211126 A1) provides a prediction method for a shale oil and gas sweet spot region, for quantitatively predicting a shale oil and gas sweet spot region and improving precision of prediction of the shale oil and gas sweet spot region.
Otaibi et al. (Pub. No.: US 20200003749 A1) evaluate the performance of secondary oil recovery processes, such as water flooding, tertiary oil recovery processes, such as gas infection and chemical flooding, and conformance control by plugging agents in high permeable zones.
However, none of the references teaches the steps (4)-(6) equivalent to the specific one claimed.
Conclusion
9. Claims 1-5 is/are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PURSOTTAM GIRI whose telephone number is (469)295-9101. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, RENEE CHAVEZ can be reached at 5712701104. 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.
/PURSOTTAM GIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights