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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending in the instant patent application.
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.
Regarding Claims 1-12, they are directed to a system, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-12 are directed to the abstract idea of enhancing performance of one or more wells.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 1, claim 1 recites to receives data relating to a plurality of production wells wherein the data received comprises billing information, payroll information, equipment activity, employee activity, rig activity, production data, workover data, or any combination thereof; analyzes at least a portion of the data received to generate results; and receive the results and/or transmit operational commands based on the results.
These claim limitations fall within Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. In addition, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. In addition, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity due to the economic principles/practices taking place.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 2-12 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a data acquisition interface, a processor, and one or more remotely located communication devices. The data acquisition interface, a processor, and one or more remotely located communication devices are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a data acquisition interface, a processor, one or more remotely located communication devices and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0011. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions. IN addition, Claim 1 recites computer functions that the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii)…at least, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, 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))).
Therefore, Claim 1 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 13-17, they are directed to a method, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 13-17 are directed to the abstract idea of enhancing performance of one or more wells.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 13, claim 13 recites receiving data wherein the data relates to a plurality of production wells wherein the data received comprises billing information, payroll information, equipment activity, employee activity, rig activity, production data, workover data, or any combination thereof; analyzing, at least a portion of the data received to generate results; and receiving, the results and/or transmitting operational commands based on the results to one or more production wells in the plurality of production wells.
These claim limitations fall within Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. In addition, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. In addition, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity due to the economic principles/practices taking place.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 14-17 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a data acquisition interface, a processor, and one or more remotely located communication devices. The data acquisition interface, a processor, and one or more remotely located communication devices are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 13 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a data acquisition interface, a processor, one or more remotely located communication devices and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0011. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions. IN addition, Claim 13 recites computer functions that the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii)…at least, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, 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))).
Therefore, Claim 13 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 10 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karn et al. (US 2021/0095559 A1) in view of Newman (US 2007/0056727 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Karn teaches the limitations of Claim 1 which state
a data acquisition interface that receives data relating to a plurality of production wells wherein the data received comprises billing information, payroll information, equipment activity, employee activity, rig activity, production data, workover data, or any combination thereof (Karn: Para 0004-0005, 0043 via actions include for resource-efficient generation of a workover rig schedule by receiving well data and workover rig data for a set of wells, each well producing oil…the well data includes one or more of well identifiers, well gains, locations, availability dates, distances between wells; and the workover rig data includes one or more of workover rig identifiers, number of workover rigs, type of workover rigs, availability dates, workover rig time to process a well… the master data 334 includes, without limitation, well master data (e.g., Well ID, Well Name, Well Type, Field, Pad, Row), rig master data (e.g., Rig ID, Rig Name), and well distance mapping. In some examples, the transactional data includes, without limitation, workover data (e.g., Workover ID, Well ID, Well Processing Time, Well Availability Date, Inventory Availability Date, Workover Creation Date, Workover Status), rig availability data (e.g., Availability Date, Current Location), and well production data (e.g., Workover ID, Well ID, Current Production, Maximum Production));
a processor operably linked to the data acquisition interface wherein the processor analyzes at least a portion of the data received to generate results (Karn: Para 0041 via FIG. 3 depicts an example conceptual architecture 300 in accordance with implementations of the present disclosure. More particularly, the WRS platform of the present disclosure can be executed within the example conceptual architecture 300 to collect workover-related data from one or more systems (e.g., an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system of an oil and gas enterprise), to propose an optimized workover rig schedule).
However, Karn does not explicitly disclose the limitation of Claim 1 which states one or more remotely located communication devices that are operably linked to the processor and one or more of the plurality of production wells wherein the one or more remotely located communication devices are configured to receive the results and/or transmit operational commands based on the results to one or more production wells in the plurality of production wells.
Newman though, with the teachings of Karn, teaches of
one or more remotely located communication devices that are operably linked to the processor and one or more of the plurality of production wells wherein the one or more remotely located communication devices are configured to receive the results and/or transmit operational commands based on the results to one or more production wells in the plurality of production wells (Newman: Para 0024-0025 via The data can thereafter be used to evaluate the data and supervise from off-site the activities of the well service rig. This latter implementation of the invention permits a service rig owner, supervisor, or well-owner customer to monitor the work being completed by the well service rig and other third parties based on data that is provided and can be reviewed after the fact or substantially in real-time. As described below in more detail, by accessing the data through a regularly updated web portal, the customer may be able to determine in near real time that, for example, the tubing pull will be completed in approximately two hours, how long the pull took, and whether to time to complete was excessive due to other operations or unexpected or wasted downtime. With such information, the owner or supervisor can provide customers with more accurate billing and train or discipline service rig crews based on their activities and their completion times. Further, the customer will have access to detailed data on the actual service performed and can then verify its invoices… a synergistic relationship among the customer and the service companies that promotes a safe environment by monitoring crew work activities and equipment speeds, improving productivity, reducing operation expenses through improved job processes, better data management, and reduced operational failures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karn with the teachings of Newman in order to have one or more remotely located communication devices that are operably linked to the processor and one or more of the plurality of production wells wherein the one or more remotely located communication devices are configured to receive the results and/or transmit operational commands based on the results to one or more production wells in the plurality of production wells. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of an evaluation of data obtained from a computerized work over rig adapted to record and transmit data concerning well servicing activities and conditions at a well site as taught by Newman. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Karn/Newman, teaches the limitations of Claim 7 which state
wherein the processor is configured to correlate rig activity with employee and equipment activity to generate the results and wherein the results comprise recommendations to enhance performance of one or more wells (Karn: Para 0017, 0021 via implementations of the present disclosure provide a workover rig scheduling platform that generates schedules in a time- and resource-efficient manner. Implementations can include actions for resource-efficient generation of a workover rig schedule by receiving well data and workover rig data for a set of wells, each well producing oil, determining sets of schedules by, for each schedule in a set of schedules, incrementally: calculating a virtual gain for each well in a set of remaining wells, each virtual gain being a function of a production gain for a respective well… implementations of the present disclosure provide a workover rig scheduling (WRS) platform. As described in further detail herein, the WRS platform of the present disclosure is based on the view that the most important key decision for qualifying a workover rig schedule is to achieve maximum production gain. In some implementations, the production gain is generally estimated as a difference between a current production capacity of a well and the potential production capacity from the well).
Regarding Claim 8, Karn/Newman teaches the limitations of Claim 8 which state
wherein the enhanced performance of one or more wells comprises one or more of increased production, reduced employee cost, reduced equipment cost, and reduced total cost (Karn: Para 0026, 0028 via the WRS platform of the present disclosure executes a WRS algorithm that is time-efficient and resource-efficient, in terms of computing resources, as compared to traditional approaches. The WRS algorithm of the present disclosure accounts for the following parameters: production well gain, well workover time, travel time, well availability, inventory availability, multiple rigs, and manual sequencing… the objective of the WRS algorithm is to produce a schedule that provides a maximum cumulative gain at the end of a specified period of time. In some implementations, an individual gain (IndividualGain) for each well (w) is determined, and the cumulative gain (Cumulative Gain) is determined based on the individual gains).
Regarding Claim 10, Karn/Newman teaches the limitation of Claim 10 which states
wherein the plurality of production wells are owned by a single customer (Newman: Para 0024-0025 via The invention contemplates that the acquired data can be transmitted in near real-time or periodically via wired, wireless, satellite or physical transfer such as by memory module to a data center preferably controlled by the service rig owner, but alternately controlled by the well owner or another. The data can thereafter be used to evaluate the data and supervise from off-site the activities of the well service rig. This latter implementation of the invention permits a service rig owner, supervisor, or well-owner customer to monitor the work being completed by the well service rig and other third parties based on data that is provided and can be reviewed after the fact or substantially in real-time… The present invention fosters a synergistic relationship among the customer and the service companies).
Regarding Claim 12, Karn/Newman teaches the limitation of Claim 12 which states
wherein the one or more remotely located communication devices comprise a tablet, a smart phone, a laptop, or a desktop (Karn: Para 0061 via The computer system can include clients and servers. A client and server are generally remote from each other and typically interact through a network, such as the described one. The relationship of client and server arises by virtue of computer programs running on the respective computers and having a client-server relationship to each other).
Regarding Claim 13, it is analogous to Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 14, Karn/Newman teaches the limitations of Claim 14 which state
correlating rig activity with employee and equipment activity to generate the results (Karn: Para 0017, 0021 via implementations of the present disclosure provide a workover rig scheduling platform that generates schedules in a time- and resource-efficient manner. Implementations can include actions for resource-efficient generation of a workover rig schedule by receiving well data and workover rig data for a set of wells, each well producing oil, determining sets of schedules by, for each schedule in a set of schedules, incrementally: calculating a virtual gain for each well in a set of remaining wells, each virtual gain being a function of a production gain for a respective well… implementations of the present disclosure provide a workover rig scheduling (WRS) platform. As described in further detail herein, the WRS platform of the present disclosure is based on the view that the most important key decision for qualifying a workover rig schedule is to achieve maximum production gain. In some implementations, the production gain is generally estimated as a difference between a current production capacity of a well and the potential production capacity from the well).
Regarding Claim 15, Karn/Newman teaches the limitation of Claim 15 which states
using the results to provide recommendations to enhance performance of one or more wells (Karn: Para 0026 via the WRS platform of the present disclosure executes a WRS algorithm that is time-efficient and resource-efficient, in terms of computing resources, as compared to traditional approaches. The WRS algorithm of the present disclosure accounts for the following parameters: production well gain, well workover time, travel time, well availability, inventory availability, multiple rigs, and manual sequencing).
Regarding Claim 16, Karn/Newman teaches the limitation of Claim 15 which states
using the results to provide recommendations to enhance performance of one or more wells (Karn: Para 0026 via the WRS platform of the present disclosure executes a WRS algorithm that is time-efficient and resource-efficient, in terms of computing resources, as compared to traditional approaches. The WRS algorithm of the present disclosure accounts for the following parameters: production well gain, well workover time, travel time, well availability, inventory availability, multiple rigs, and manual sequencing).
Regarding Claim 17, Karn/Newman teaches the limitation of Claim 17 which states
wherein the enhanced performance comprises one or more of increased production, reduced employee cost, reduced equipment cost, and reduced total cost (Karn: Para 0026, 0028 via the WRS platform of the present disclosure executes a WRS algorithm that is time-efficient and resource-efficient, in terms of computing resources, as compared to traditional approaches. The WRS algorithm of the present disclosure accounts for the following parameters: production well gain, well workover time, travel time, well availability, inventory availability, multiple rigs, and manual sequencing… the objective of the WRS algorithm is to produce a schedule that provides a maximum cumulative gain at the end of a specified period of time. In some implementations, an individual gain (IndividualGain) for each well (w) is determined, and the cumulative gain (Cumulative Gain) is determined based on the individual gains).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karn et al. (US 2021/0095559 A1) in view of Newman (US 2007/0056727 A1) further in view of Valleru et al. (US 11,306,563 B2).
Regarding Claim 2, while Karn/Newman teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 2 which states wherein the data acquisition interface is operably linked to a ticketing system and a tracking system.
Valleru though, with the teachings of Karn/Newman, teaches of
wherein the data acquisition interface is operably linked to a ticketing system and a tracking system (Valleru: Col 12 line 12 – Col 15 line 13 via use of a drilling collaboration platform to track and complete a task on a drilling rig).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karn/Newman with the teachings of Valleru in order to have wherein the data acquisition interface is operably linked to a ticketing system and a tracking system. The motivation behind this being to incorporate the teachings of receiving and managing data from a drilling rig and external sources, generating and updating drilling rig schedules, and managing communications with third parties to perform tasks on a drilling rig as taught by Valleru. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 3, Karn/Newman/Valleru teaches the limitations of Claim 3 which states
wherein the ticketing system comprises billing information and is a service company's ticketing system (Valleru: Col 12 line 12 – Col 15 line 13 via use of a drilling collaboration platform to track and complete a task on a drilling rig).
Regarding Claim 5, Karn/Newman/Valleru teaches the limitations of Claim 2 which states
wherein the tracking system comprises rig activity (Newman: Para 0026 via Implementation of the invention on a conventional service rig can be conceptualized in two main aspects: 1) acquisition, recordation and transmission of transducer data such as hook load, hydraulic pressure, flow rate, etc. and 2) acquisition, recordation, and transmission of service-based activity, such as "Rig Up," "Nipple Up Blow Out Preventer," and "Pull Tubing," among others. Acquisition of physical transducer or sensor data can be achieved through automated means, such as a transducer that converts pressure to an electrical signal being fed to an analog-to-digital converter and then to a recoding means, such as a hard drive in a computer or memory in a microprocessor. Acquisition of service-based activity may be achieved by service rig operator input into a microprocessor-based system. It is contemplated that the transducer data and activity data may be acquired by and stored by the same or different systems, depending the design and requirements of the service rig).
Regarding Claim 6, Karn/Newman/Valleru teaches the limitations of Claim 2 which states
wherein rig activity comprises data from one or more sensors (Newman: Para 0026, 0048 via the mobile service rig contains numerous tools for performing various repair tasks, and most of these tools contain some sort of transducer for providing an indication of the work being performed. (As used herein, "transducer" should be understood as any sort of detector, sensor, or measuring device for providing a signal indicative of the work being performed by a particular tool). Using such transducers, important parameters can be measured or monitored, such as hook load, tong torque, engine RPM, hydrogen sulfide concentration, a block position encoder for determining where the block is in is travel, engine oil pressure, clutch air pressure, global positioning system monitor, and any other sensor that might provide data worth being monitored by the well service provider).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karn et al. (US 2021/0095559 A1) in view of Newman (US 2007/0056727 A1) in view of Valleru et al. (US 11,306,563 B2) further in view of Newman (2002/0156730 A1), hereby known as Newman '730.
Regarding Claim 4, while the combination of Karn/Newman/Valleru teaches the limitations of Claim 3, it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 4 which state wherein the billing information comprises well identification, personnel information, equipment information, and service details.
Newman ‘730 though, with the teachings of Karn/Newman/Valleru, teaches of
wherein the billing information comprises well identification, personnel information, equipment information, and service details (Newman ‘730: Para 0025 via Invoice data refers to any information commonly associated with a bill for goods or services. Invoice data 92 and 94 may include information such as part numbers, price, quantities, descriptions, labor fees, rental costs, taxes, miscellaneous charges, or other invoice related information. Invoice data 92 can be an entire invoice or just one line item of an invoice having several line items).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karn/Newman/Valleru with the teachings of Newman ‘730 in order to have wherein the billing information comprises well identification, personnel information, equipment information, and service details. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of managing billing information of more than one contractor at a well site as taught by Newman ‘730. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods will yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karn et al. (US 2021/0095559 A1) in view of Newman (US 2007/0056727 A1) further in view of Burgos (US 2016/0186554 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, while the combination of Karn/Newman teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 9 which state wherein the workover data comprises production tubing removal data, production tubing replacement data, through tubing data, zonal isolation data, and stimulation data.
Burgos though, with the teachings of Karn/Newman, teaches of
wherein the workover data comprises production tubing removal data, production tubing replacement data, through tubing data, zonal isolation data, and stimulation data (Burgos: Para 0031 via the tool(s) 140 (via the lateral wellbore locator illustrated in FIG. 1) may be operable for performing operations such as measurement, treatment, intervention, and/or other operations in which signals and/or data are transmitted between the surface equipment 119 and the tool(s) 140 downhole via the fiber optic tether 211. For example, such signals may convey measurements from the tool(s) 140 or convey control signals from the surface equipment 119 to the tool(s) 140. The signals may be conveyed in real time or otherwise. Examples operations may include matrix stimulation, fill cleanout, fracturing, scale removal, zonal isolation, coiled tubing conveyed perforation, downhole flow control, downhole completion manipulation, fishing, milling, coiled tubing drilling, production logging, and acquisition of calibration parameters, although other operations may also be within the scope of the present disclosure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karn/Newman with the teachings of Burgos in order to have wherein the workover data comprises production tubing removal data, production tubing replacement data, through tubing data, zonal isolation data, and stimulation data. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of logging the production data of wells. Furthermore, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karn et al. (US 2021/0095559 A1) in view of Newman (US 2007/0056727 A1) further in view of Kwok et al. (US 2010/0147510 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, while Karn/Newman teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 11 which state wherein the production wells in the plurality of production wells are owned by more than one customer.
Kwok though, with the teachings of Karn/Newman, teaches of
wherein the production wells in the plurality of production wells are owned by more than one customer (Kwok: Para 0020 via Platform P1 can provide a secure network infrastructure with adequate bandwidth connectivity to enable the overall platform to function effectively and reliably. The combination of Platforms P2 and P3 can be used to enable communication/collaboration operations for well-site personnel, remote personnel, and customers. The combination of Platforms P4 and P5 can create an operations control and monitor environment for well-site and remote (control) personnel. The RLOC Platform (a combination of Platforms P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5) can be integrated with the substantially real time operations service support infrastructure (Platforms P6 and P7) to provide the remote witness environment for customers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karn/Newman with the teachings of Kwok in order to have wherein the production wells in the plurality of production wells are owned by more than one customer. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of recording data in well bore environments for customers. Furthermore, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Newman et al. (US 7,0006,920 B2)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE E SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1684. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5:30.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/T.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625