DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claims 1-12 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
Claim 1 recites “…the property of interest for a measurement A for the second well…” in the last claim element. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, this language also renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the property of interest for a measurement A” when a measurement A is itself a property of interest per the first claim element: “…wherein the measurement A of the first well is a property of interest…”. Claims 2-10 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claims 7 and 8
Claims 7 recites “wherein the first well is a plurality of wells”. It is unclear what it means for a well (singular) to be a plurality of wells. An amendment of the form “wherein the first well is instead a plurality of wells” would yield the withdrawal of this rejection. Claim 8 is also rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 7.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites “…developing a mapping the measurement B of the at least two first wells with the measurement A of the first two wells in order to derive a property of interest of the first well…”. The limitation “the first two wells” renders the claim indefinite as it introduces language implying the presence of an ordering but does not provide further language to describe how the at least three wells (at least two first wells and at least one second well) would be ordered. The limitation “of the first well” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which of the two first wells the language refers. Claim 12 is also rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 11.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites “wherein at least one measurement A of the first well is a high-resolution measurement”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation and it renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear to which of the two first wells the language is referring. Furthermore, the limitation “high-resolution” is a relative term used without defining what does and/or does not constitute a high-resolution, therefore further rendering the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is meant to be included and/or excluded from the claimed invention by invoking this limitation.
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.
Evaluating whether a claim is eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 adheres to the following eligibility analysis procedure:
Step 1: The examiner determines whether then claim belongs to a statutory category. See MPEP § 2016(III).
Step 2A, prong 1: The examiner evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(II), a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Step 2A, prong 2: The examiner evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by:
identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The examiner evaluates if additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept (also called "significantly more" than the recited judicial exception).
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (a method claim)
Step 2A-I: The claim recites the abstract idea of mental processes (data observations):
identifying a first data set for a first well that comprises at least a measurement A of the first well and a measurement B of the first well, wherein the measurement a of the first well is a property of interest
identifying a second data set for a second well, wherein the second set of data comprises a measurement B for the second well
and further recites the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm, performed using the results obtained from performing the above mental processes, comprising the following steps:
developing a mapping the measurement B of the first well with the measurement A of the first well in order to derive a property of interest of the first well; and
deriving the property of interest for a measurement A for the second well from the measurement B of the second well using the mapping developed.
A combination of abstract ideas is an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(I) – "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
Step 2A-II: The claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the mere performance of the steps in the recited mental processes and/or the recited mathematical algorithm do not increase the efficiency of hydrocarbon resource extraction or improve the process of well drill site selection.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-8 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1 and that they do not recite any further additional element that amount to significantly more or integrate the recited mathematical algorithm into a practical application.
Claim 9 (a method claim)
Step 2A-I: The claim recites the abstract ideas of mental processes and a mathematical algorithm as it inherits the limitations of claim 1.
Step 2A-II: The claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the mere performance of the steps in the recited mental processes and/or the recited mathematical algorithm do not increase the efficiency of hydrocarbon resource extraction or improve the process of well drill site selection.
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional element:
obtaining an actual measurement A and property of interest from the second well
However, additional element (a) is merely a necessary data gathering step required for the performance of further insignificant extra-solution activity in claim 10.
Claim 10 (a method claim)
Step 2A-I: The claim recites the abstract ideas of mental processes and a mathematical algorithm as it inherits the limitations of claim 1.
Step 2A-II: The claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the mere performance of the steps in the recited mental processes and/or the recited mathematical algorithm do not increase the efficiency of hydrocarbon resource extraction or improve the process of well drill site selection.
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional element:
comparing the derived measurement A of the second well and derived property of interest of the second well to an actual measurement A of the second well and the actual property of interest of the second well
However, the above additional element is merely a data analysis step that does not go beyond that which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The following from MPEP § 2106.05(g) is recognized to be insignificant extra-solution activity: “’Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display’, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”
Claim 11 (a method claim)
Step 2A-I: The claim recites the abstract ideas of mental processes (data observations):
identifying a first data set for at least two first wells that comprises at least a measurement A and a measurement B, wherein the measurement A is a property of interest;
identifying a second data set for at least one second well in the same field, wherein the second set of data comprises a measurement B for the second well
and further recites the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm, performed using the results obtained from performing the above mental processes, comprising the following steps:
developing a mapping the measurement B of the at least two first wells with the measurement A of the first two wells in order to derive a property of interest of the first well; and
deriving a property of interest for a measurement A for the at least one second well in the same field from the measurement B of the at least one second well using the mapping developed.
A combination of abstract ideas is an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(I) – "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
Step 2A-II: The claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the mere performance of the steps in the recited mental processes and/or the recited mathematical algorithm do not increase the efficiency of hydrocarbon resource extraction or improve the process of well drill site selection.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, the dependent claim 12 is also rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 20070011115 A1, hereinafter Smith).
Claim 1
Smith discloses a method of deriving a geological parameter for at least one well, comprising: identifying a first data set for a first well (Claim 1 — “A method that comprises: collecting at least one output log of a first well bore from measurements with a radioisotopic source…”) that comprises at least a measurement A of the first well (Claim 1 — “A method that comprises: collecting at least one output log of a first well bore from measurements with a radioisotopic source…”) and a measurement B of the first well (Claim 1 — “…collecting at least one input log of the first well bore from measurements by a non-radioisotopic logging tool…”; the non-radioisotopic logging tool is a pulsed neutron capture (PNC) tool, see [0027] — “Wireline logging tool 36 may include one or more logging tools such as a pulsed neutron capture (PNC) tool.”, [0032] — “The collected data includes the desired neutron porosity and density logs derived from measurements by radioisotopic sources, along with various cased and open hole logs from tools without a radioisotopic source [e.g.] logs of PNC tool measurements…”; the input log and output log together would constitute a data set), wherein the measurement A of the first well is a property of interest ([0032] — “The collected data includes the desired neutron porosity and density logs derived from measurements by radioisotopic sources, along with various cased and open hole logs from tools without a radioisotopic source [e.g.] logs of PNC tool measurements…”; the desired data is derived from measurement A, the measurement A therefore being a property of interest); identifying a second data set for a second well (Claim 1 — “…collecting at least one input log of a second well bore from measurements by the non-radioisotopic logging tool…”), wherein the second set of data comprises a measurement B for the second well (Claim 1 — “…collecting at least one input log of a second well bore from measurements by the non-radioisotopic logging tool…”); developing a mapping the measurement B of the first well with the measurement A of the first well (Claim 1 — “A method that comprises: collecting at least one output log of a first well bore from measurements with a radioisotopic source; collecting at least one input log of the first well bore from measurements by a non-radioisotopic logging tool; training a neural network to predict the output log from the at least one input log…”; the neural network training maps input logs (measurement B) with output logs (measurement A)) in order to derive a property of interest of the first well (the neural network mapping is intended to replace radioisotopic measurement tools, see [0032] — “Training well data needs only to be collected from one (or at most a few) wells in a given field. Thereafter, the radioisotopic source tools can eliminated, and all additional development wells can be logged without use of radioisotopic sources.” and [0035] — “In block 310, the logs from the pulsed neutron log and the non-radioisotopic open hole logs are used to predict the neutron porosity and density logs that would have been measured by tools having radioisotopic sources. Such prediction may be deterministic or may rely on neural networks and/or genetic algorithms developed using log information from the training well(s).”; neutron porosity and density logs are properties of interest); and deriving the property of interest for a measurement A for the second well from the measurement B of the second well using the mapping developed (Claim 1 — “…and processing the at least one input log of the second well bore to synthesize at least one output log of the second well bore.”; the synthesizing is performed by the neural network to derive the property of interest, see [0053] — “In alternative embodiments, each neural network is trained to produce a single output, with different networks being trained to produce different synthetic radioisotopic source tool logs.” and [0035] — “In block 310, the logs from the pulsed neutron log and the non-radioisotopic open hole logs are used to predict the neutron porosity and density logs that would have been measured by tools having radioisotopic sources. Such prediction may be deterministic or may rely on neural networks and/or genetic algorithms developed using log information from the training well(s).”).
Claim 2
Smith further discloses wherein the first well is in a same field as the second well ([0032] — “Training well data needs only to be collected from one (or at most a few) wells in a given field. Thereafter, the radioisotopic source tools can eliminated, and all additional development wells can be logged without use of radioisotopic sources.”).
Claim 3
Smith discloses wherein the first well is an analog of the second well ([0056] — “Also, it may be advantageous (but not mandatory) to have the logs collected in the training well under the same casing conditions (i.e., open hole vs. cased hole) as the corresponding logs obtained in the subsequent wells.”; [0071] — “It is desirable (but not mandatory) to have complete data from at least two training wells with similar formation conditions.”; wells with analogous conditions are analogous wells).
Claim 4
Smith further discloses wherein the property of interest of the first well and the property of interest of the second well is at least one of permeability, saturation, clay volume, heterogeneity, anisotropy, elemental concentration ([0003] — “(Neutron porosity is primarily a measure of hydrogen concentration, and hydrogen predominately appears in fluids contained in the formation pores.)”; neutron porosity is a property of interest and a measure of elemental concentration (hydrogen concentration)), other petrophysical properties ([0032] — “The collected data includes the desired neutron porosity and density logs derived from measurements by radioisotopic sources…”), and combinations thereof.
Claim 5
Smith further discloses wherein the at least one measurement A of the first well and the measurement B of the first well is at an acoustic measurement ([0032] — “…logs of PNC tool measurements, resistivity measurements, sonic measurements, nuclear magnetic resonance measurements, etc.”), nuclear measurement ([0032] — “The collected data includes the desired neutron porosity and density logs derived from measurements by radioisotopic sources…”), resistivity measurement ([0032] — “…logs of PNC tool measurements, resistivity measurements, sonic measurements, nuclear magnetic resonance measurements, etc.”), nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy ([0032] — “…logs of PNC tool measurements, resistivity measurements, sonic measurements, nuclear magnetic resonance measurements, etc.”), and combinations thereof ([0032] — “…logs of PNC tool measurements, resistivity measurements, sonic measurements, nuclear magnetic resonance measurements, etc.”).
Claim 7
While rejected under 35 USC 112(b), for the sake of compact prosecution, the claim is assumed to mean “The method of claim 1, wherein the first well is instead a plurality of wells”.
Smith discloses wherein the first well is a plurality of wells ([0032] — “Training well data needs only to be collected from one (or at most a few) wells in a given field.”).
Claim 8
Smith discloses wherein the first data set comprises a plurality of measurements A and measurements B for each well of the plurality of wells (Claim 1 — “A method that comprises: collecting at least one output log of a first well bore from measurements with a radioisotopic source; collecting at least one input log of the first well bore from measurements by a non-radioisotopic logging tool…”, measurement B; the two together constitute a dataset).
Claim 9
Smith discloses obtaining an actual measurement A and property of interest for the second well ([0079] — “Numerous variations and modifications will become apparent to those skilled in the art once the above disclosure is fully appreciated. For example, the neural network ensemble may be configured to generate additional synthetic logs for comparison to actual logs.”; the synthetic logs are the derived measurement A for the second well, which means the actual logs are actual measurement A for the second well).
Claim 10
Smith discloses comparing the derived measurement A of the second well and derived property of interest of the second well to an actual measurement A of the second well and the actual property of interest of the second well ([0079] — “Numerous variations and modifications will become apparent to those skilled in the art once the above disclosure is fully appreciated. For example, the neural network ensemble may be configured to generate additional synthetic logs for comparison to actual logs.”; the synthetic logs are the derived measurement A of the second well and derived property of interest of the second well and the actual logs are actual measurement A of the second well and actual property of interest of the second well).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Smith.
Claim 6
Smith discloses high-resolution measurement ([0035] — “With a properly trained and configured neural network ensemble, the predicted logs in some cases may be expected to have a higher resolution and accuracy than what could actually be measured by a tool with a radioisotopic source, due to the higher resolution of various input logs, and their increased depth of investigation relative to the radioisotopic source tool logs.”; higher-resolution logs are produced by higher-resolution measurements).
Smith fails to disclose wherein measurement A of the first well is a high-resolution measurement.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to take high-resolution measurements as disclosed by Smith for measurement A of the first well in order to improve the accuracy and precision of the measurement and accuracy of the mapping, as more accurate and precise measurements would make a better mapping.
Claim 11
While rejected under 112(b), for the sake of compact prosecution the limitation “the first two wells” will be assumed to mean “the at least two first wells” and the limitation “the first well” will be assumed to mean “the at least two first wells”.
Smith discloses a method of deriving a geological parameter for wells in a field (it is inherent that wells are in a field), comprising: identifying a first data set for a first well (Claim 1 — “A method that comprises: collecting at least one output log of a first well bore from measurements with a radioisotopic source…”) that comprises at least a measurement A (Claim 1 — “A method that comprises: collecting at least one output log of a first well bore from measurements with a radioisotopic source…”) and a measurement B (Claim 1 — “…collecting at least one input log of the first well bore from measurements by a non-radioisotopic logging tool…”; the non-radioisotopic logging tool is a pulsed neutron capture (PNC) tool, see [0027] — “Wireline logging tool 36 may include one or more logging tools such as a pulsed neutron capture (PNC) tool.”, [0032] — “The collected data includes the desired neutron porosity and density logs derived from measurements by radioisotopic sources, along with various cased and open hole logs from tools without a radioisotopic source [e.g.] logs of PNC tool measurements…”; the input log and output log together would constitute a data set), wherein the measurement A is a property of interest ([0032] — “The collected data includes the desired neutron porosity and density logs derived from measurements by radioisotopic sources, along with various cased and open hole logs from tools without a radioisotopic source [e.g.] logs of PNC tool measurements…”; the desired data is derived from measurement A, the measurement A therefore being a property of interest); identifying a second data set for at least one second well (Claim 1 — “…collecting at least one input log of a second well bore from measurements by the non-radioisotopic logging tool…”), wherein the second set of data comprises a measurement B for the second well (Claim 1 — “…collecting at least one input log of a second well bore from measurements by the non-radioisotopic logging tool…”); developing a mapping the measurement B of the first well with the measurement A of the first well (Claim 1 — “A method that comprises: collecting at least one output log of a first well bore from measurements with a radioisotopic source; collecting at least one input log of the first well bore from measurements by a non-radioisotopic logging tool; training a neural network to predict the output log from the at least one input log…”; the neural network training maps input logs (measurement B) with output logs (measurement A)) in order to derive a property of interest of the first well (the neural network mapping is intended to replace radioisotopic measurement tools, see [0032] — “Training well data needs only to be collected from one (or at most a few) wells in a given field. Thereafter, the radioisotopic source tools can eliminated, and all additional development wells can be logged without use of radioisotopic sources.” and [0035] — “In block 310, the logs from the pulsed neutron log and the non-radioisotopic open hole logs are used to predict the neutron porosity and density logs that would have been measured by tools having radioisotopic sources. Such prediction may be deterministic or may rely on neural networks and/or genetic algorithms developed using log information from the training well(s).”; neutron porosity and density logs are properties of interest); and deriving a property of interest for a measurement A for the at least one second well from the measurement B of the at least one second well using the mapping developed (Claim 1 — “…and processing the at least one input log of the second well bore to synthesize at least one output log of the second well bore.”; the synthesizing is performed by the neural network to derive the property of interest, see [0053] — “In alternative embodiments, each neural network is trained to produce a single output, with different networks being trained to produce different synthetic radioisotopic source tool logs.” and [0035] — “In block 310, the logs from the pulsed neutron log and the non-radioisotopic open hole logs are used to predict the neutron porosity and density logs that would have been measured by tools having radioisotopic sources. Such prediction may be deterministic or may rely on neural networks and/or genetic algorithms developed using log information from the training well(s).”).
Smith fails to disclose for the above method wherein there are at least two first wells and wherein the at least one second well is in the same field.
Smith separately discloses measuring data from multiple wells within the same field ([0032] — “Training well data needs only to be collected from one (or at most a few) wells in a given field.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to obtain measurements from more than one well as disclosed by Smith for more than one first well in order to improve the generality of the method and the mapping by increasing the first well sample size to account for potential anomalous measurement values.
Smith still fails to teach wherein the at least one second well is in the same field.
Smith separately discloses multiple wells within the same field ([0032] — “Training well data needs only to be collected from one (or at most a few) wells in a given field.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the at least one second well taught by Smith be within the same field as the at least two first wells for the advantage of improving the accuracy of the mapping in deriving the property of interest for the second well, as it is more likely that wells from the same field will have similar geological characteristics.
Claim 12
While rejected under 112(b), for the sake of compact prosecution the limitation “the first well” will be assumed to mean “the at least two first wells”.
Smith discloses high-resolution measurement ([0035] — “With a properly trained and configured neural network ensemble, the predicted logs in some cases may be expected to have a higher resolution and accuracy than what could actually be measured by a tool with a radioisotopic source, due to the higher resolution of various input logs, and their increased depth of investigation relative to the radioisotopic source tool logs.”; higher-resolution logs are produced by higher-resolution measurements).
Smith fails to disclose wherein at least one measurement A of the first well is a high-resolution measurement.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to take high-resolution measurements as disclosed by Smith for at least one measurement A of the at least two first wells in order to improve the accuracy and precision of the measurement and accuracy of the mapping, as more accurate and precise measurements would make a better mapping.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
Camp et al. (US 20210255361 A1), Systems and Methods for Optimum Subsurface Sensor Usage
Ma et al. (US 20210124079 A1), Clay Detection and Quantification Using Downhole Low Frequency Electromagnetic Measurements
Schmedes et al. (US 20200041692 A1), Detecting Fluid Types Using Petrophysical Inversion
Kaiser et al. (US 20190106986 A1), Field-Level Analysis of Downhole Operation Logs
Fawad et al. (US 20210255359 A1), Method for Estimating Rock Brittleness from Well-Log Data
Livescu et al. (US 20220075086 A1), Multi-Sensor Data Assimilation and Predictive Analytics for Optimizing Well Operations
Dusterhoft et al. (US 20210364669 A1), Multi-Well Interference Control and Mitigation
The examiner used the above prior art to better contextualize the claimed invention within the current state of the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN JAMES STEAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8334. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 EST/EDT.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/RYAN JAMES STEAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights