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 1-20 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 1-10, they are directed to a method, however the claims are rejected because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-10 are directed to the abstract idea of well completion design and evaluation.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 1, claim 1 recites obtaining a plurality of measurement datasets associated with subsurface features of a wellbore, wherein the plurality of measurement datasets comprises (i) a first measurement dataset indicating one or more reflectors in the wellbore, (ii) a second measurement dataset indicating at least one of one or more fractures or one or more faults in the wellbore, (iii) a third measurement dataset indicating at least one of one or more inversion surfaces or fluid contact boundaries in the wellbore, and (iv) a fourth measurement dataset indicating one or more fault surfaces in the wellbore; generating a distance data structure comprising a respective pairwise distance metric for at least one pair of subsurface features of the wellbore; determining one or more fracture pathways in the wellbore, based at least in part on the distance data structure; determining, for at least one interval of the wellbore, a respective texture type corresponding to each segment of at least one interval, based at least in part on the second measurement dataset; generating, for each segment, a risk metric indicating a likelihood that completing the segment will establish a communication with at least one of the one or more fractures, the one or more faults, or the fluid contact boundaries in the wellbore; and outputting a completion recommendation, based at least in part on the risk metrics.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Furthermore, 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 (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 2-10 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 does not recite any elements that would 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 the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0033-0036. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claim 1 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 11-19, they are directed to a system, however the claims are rejected because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 11-19 are directed to the abstract idea of well completion design and evaluation.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 11, claim 11 recites obtain a plurality of measurement datasets associated with subsurface features of a wellbore, wherein the plurality of measurement datasets comprises (i) a first measurement dataset indicating one or more reflectors in the wellbore, (ii) a second measurement dataset indicating at least one of one or more fractures or one or more faults in the wellbore, (iii) a third measurement dataset indicating at least one of one or more inversion surfaces or fluid contact boundaries in the wellbore, and (iv) a fourth measurement dataset indicating one or more fault surfaces in the wellbore; generate a distance data structure comprising a respective pairwise distance metric for at least one pair of subsurface features of the wellbore; determine one or more fracture pathways in the wellbore, based at least in part on the distance data structure; determine, for at least one interval of the wellbore, a respective texture type corresponding to each segment of at least one interval, based at least in part on the second measurement dataset; generate, for each segment, a risk metric indicating a likelihood that completing the segment will establish a communication with at least one of the one or more fractures, the one or more faults, or the fluid contact boundaries in the wellbore; and output a completion recommendation, based at least in part on the risk metrics.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Furthermore, 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 (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 12-19 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 one or more memories, one or more processors and a computing system. The one or more memories, one or more processors and a computing system are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 15 recites one or more processors and a computing system which like Claim 11, are merely being used as tools to carry out the abstract idea.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 11 and 15 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include one or more memories, one or more processors, a computing system and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0033-0036. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claims 11 and 15, alone or in combination, are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 20, it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, however the claims are rejected because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claim 20 is directed to the abstract idea of well completion design and evaluation.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 20, claim 20 recites obtain a plurality of measurement datasets associated with subsurface features of a wellbore, wherein the plurality of measurement datasets comprises (i) a first measurement dataset indicating one or more reflectors in the wellbore, (ii) a second measurement dataset indicating at least one of one or more fractures or one or more faults in the wellbore, (iii) a third measurement dataset indicating at least one of one or more inversion surfaces or fluid contact boundaries in the wellbore, and (iv) a fourth measurement dataset indicating one or more fault surfaces in the wellbore; generate a distance data structure comprising a respective pairwise distance metric for at least one pair of subsurface features of the wellbore; determine one or more fracture pathways in the wellbore, based at least in part on the distance data structure; determine, for at least one interval of the wellbore, a respective texture type corresponding to each segment of at least one interval, based at least in part on the second measurement dataset; generate, for each segment, a risk metric indicating a likelihood that completing the segment will establish a communication with at least one of the one or more fractures, the one or more faults, or the fluid contact boundaries in the wellbore; and output a completion recommendation, based at least in part on the risk metrics.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Furthermore, 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 (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Accordingly, the claim recites an 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 one or more processors and a computing system. The one or more processors and a computing system are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for they are merely being used as tools to carry out the abstract idea.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 20 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include one or more processors, a computing system and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0033-0036. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claim 20 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) 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holland et al. (US 2014/0372094 A1) in view of Von Gonten et al. (US 2016/0313469 A1) in view of Burmester et al. (US 2015/024159 A1) further in view of Bennett (US 2020/0003922 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Holland teaches the limitations of Claim 1 which states
generating a distance data structure comprising a respective pairwise distance metric for at least one pair of subsurface features of the wellbore (Holland: Para 0056, 0059-0065 via calculating normal, parallel, minimum spacing and connection distances for events and fractures);
determining one or more fracture pathways in the wellbore, based at least in part on the distance data structure (Holland: Para 0058, 0063-0065, 0070, 0079-0081 via determining whether to extend a current fracture or add a new connecting one according to the distance…every added fracture must connecting to the capture network and candidate connections are tested using their minimum connection distance).
However, Holland does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 1 which state generating, for each segment, a risk metric indicating a likelihood that completing the segment will establish a communication with at least one of the one or more fractures, the one or more faults, or the fluid contact boundaries in the wellbore; and outputting a completion recommendation, based at least in part on the risk metrics.
Von Gonten though, with the teachings of Holland, teaches of
generating, for each segment, a risk metric indicating a likelihood that completing the segment will establish a communication with at least one of the one or more fractures, the one or more faults, or the fluid contact boundaries in the wellbore (Von Gonten: Para 0106-0115, 0124-0131 via generating confidence/risk-based barriers and connectivity measures along the depth); and
outputting a completion recommendation, based at least in part on the risk metrics (Von Gonten: Para 0107, 0115-0123, 0130-0132 via landing/completion recommendations generated from connectivity, barrier-risk and production potential calculations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Holland with the teachings of Van Gonten in order to have generating, for each segment, a risk metric indicating a likelihood that completing the segment will establish a communication with at least one of the one or more fractures, the one or more faults, or the fluid contact boundaries in the wellbore; and outputting a completion recommendation, based at least in part on the risk metrics. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of optimizing reservoir production, and selection of geological zones for landing horizontal wellbores for subsequent hydraulic fracturing based on risk assessment and subsequent recommendations as taught by Von Gonten. 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.
Furthermore, Holland does not teach the limitations of Claim 1 which state obtaining a plurality of measurement datasets associated with subsurface features of a wellbore, wherein the plurality of measurement datasets comprises (ii) a second measurement dataset indicating at least one of one or more fractures or one or more faults in the wellbore, (iii) a third measurement dataset indicating at least one of one or more inversion surfaces or fluid contact boundaries in the wellbore; determining, for at least one interval of the wellbore, a respective texture type corresponding to each segment of at least one interval, based at least in part on the second measurement dataset.
Burmester though, with the teachings of Holland/Von Gonten, teaches of
obtaining a plurality of measurement datasets associated with subsurface features of a wellbore, wherein the plurality of measurement datasets comprises
(ii) a second measurement dataset indicating at least one of one or more fractures or one or more faults in the wellbore (Burmester: Para 0013 via As depicted, recordings and observations may include (1) wireline caliper, GR, PE, density, and neutron porosity recordings and observations; (2) static and dynamic images recordings and observations; (3) manual picks, bedding, and fractures/faults recordings and observations; and (4) stratigraphy and relative porosity difference (RPD) recordings and observations. More specifically, wireline caliper, GR, PE, density, and neutron porosity recordings and observations may include hole shape measurements/representations 278, gamma ray (GR) and photoelectric (PE) measurements 279, density and neutron porosity measurements 280, and depth in meters 281. Static and dynamic images recordings and observations may include static normalized resistivity image data 282 and dynamic normalized resistivity image data 283. Additionally, manual picks, bedding, and fractures/faults recordings and observations may include manual dips 284, bedding azimuth frequency histograms by structural zone 285, and strike frequency histograms and poles by structural zone 286. Further, stratigraphy and RPD recordings and observations may include uncorrected fracture density measurements 287, structural dip and fault position measurements 288, stratigraphy 289, and SW, porosity, density, and RPD measurements),
(iii) a third measurement dataset indicating at least one of one or more inversion surfaces or fluid contact boundaries in the wellbore (Burmester: Para 0024, 0077-0084 via petrophysical calculations, water saturation and zones of fluid-phase change are determined from logs and images);
determining, for at least one interval of the wellbore, a respective texture type corresponding to each segment of at least one interval, based at least in part on the second measurement dataset (Burmester: Para 0013, 0068-0072, 0094-0096 via divides borehole image readings by depth/interval and assigns image texture classes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Holland/Von Gonten with the teachings of Burmester in order to have obtaining a plurality of measurement datasets associated with subsurface features of a wellbore, wherein the plurality of measurement datasets comprises (ii) a second measurement dataset indicating at least one of one or more fractures or one or more faults in the wellbore, (iii) a third measurement dataset indicating at least one of one or more inversion surfaces or fluid contact boundaries in the wellbore; determining, for at least one interval of the wellbore, a respective texture type corresponding to each segment of at least one interval, based at least in part on the second measurement dataset. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of determining the subsurface materials within a hydrocarbon reservoir as taught by Burmester. 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.
In addition, Holland does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 1 which state obtaining a plurality of measurement datasets associated with subsurface features of a wellbore, wherein the plurality of measurement datasets comprises (i) a first measurement dataset indicating one or more reflectors in the wellbore, (iv) a fourth measurement dataset indicating one or more fault surfaces in the wellbore.
Bennett though, with the teachings of Holland/Von Gonten/Burmester, teaches of
obtaining a plurality of measurement datasets associated with subsurface features of a wellbore, wherein the plurality of measurement datasets comprises
(i) a first measurement dataset indicating one or more reflectors in the wellbore (Bennett: Para 0086 via A spreadsheet (FIGS. 16A1-16A3), or some other structured data object(s), that contains information describing the three-dimensional locations and orientations as well as ray path type of the reflectors),
(iv) a fourth measurement dataset indicating one or more fault surfaces in the wellbore (Bennett: Para 0187 via In logging-while drilling applications, the reflector information can be used to generate and display a real time mapping of fractures, faults, bed boundaries, and other acoustic reflectors relative to the well trajectory while drilling. Such real-time mapping can be used to dynamically adjust the trajectory of the drilling operation (or stop the drilling operation) as deemed optimal for the geometry of the formation structures with knowledge of the location of the fractures, faults, bed boundaries, and other acoustic reflector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Holland/Von Gonten/Burmester with the teachings of Bennett in order to have obtaining a plurality of measurement datasets associated with subsurface features of a wellbore, wherein the plurality of measurement datasets comprises (i) a first measurement dataset indicating one or more reflectors in the wellbore, (iv) a fourth measurement dataset indicating one or more fault surfaces in the wellbore. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teaching of downhole sonic logging measurements to derive information pertaining to subsurface formation structures as taught by Bennett. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods will yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Holland/Von Gonten/Burmester/Bennett teaches the limitations of Claim 2 which state
wherein the risk metric is based on a plurality of risk flags, each risk flag being associated with a respective type of risk for establishing the communication (Von Gonten: Para 0112-0115, 0124-0131 via using multiple separate classified barrier/interface risks, confidence levels and cumulative risk curves to form a recommendation).
Regarding Claim 4, Holland/Von Gonten/Burmester/Bennett teaches the limitations of Claim 4 which state
wherein the at least one pair of subsurface features comprises: a fault surface and a fracture surface; a fault surface and another fault surface; a fracture surface and another fracture surface; a fault surface and a fluid contact boundary; a fracture surface and a fluid contact boundary; or a combination thereof (Holland: Para 0064, 0080 via A required length parameter may be based on a PDF, which may be overruled by a cross-cutting relationship to the existing fracture. The distance to fractures of the same set can be defined based on the critical fracture density and a defined minimal distance…As shown in FIG. 8A, the event 84 is beyond the selected proximity range of the already captured fractures. As shown in FIG. 8B, a new fracture 86 is added to connect the event 84 to the network. The orientations of the available fracture sets that may be added as the new fracture 84 are tested for their minimum connection distance to the event 84. The connection distances can be used as a weight to determine which of the orientations is used for the connection. The parameters of the favored set are then used to add a fracture to connect the event to the captured network).
Regarding Claim 5, Holland/Von Gonten/Burmester/Bennett teaches the limitations of Claim 5 which state
further comprising determining a respective ranking for each of the one or more fracture pathways, based at least in part on the first measurement dataset (Holland: Para 0063-0066, 0080-0081 via ranking candidate fracture connections wherein shorter connection distances receive larger weights. The favored one is used to make the connection).
Regarding Claim 6, Holland/Von Gonten/Burmester/Bennett teaches the limitations of Claim 6 which state
wherein the first measurement dataset is obtained from sonic imaging of the wellbore (Bennett: Para 0021 via a sonic logging tool employs a high order acoustic source (such as a dipole acoustic source) that transmits acoustic signals that probe near wellbore formation structures. Interaction of the acoustic energy transmitted by the high order acoustic source with the near wellbore formation structures produces acoustic waveforms, including polarized shear waveforms, that return to the sonic logging tool where the returning acoustic waveforms are received by an array of receiver sensors. Waveform data derived from the received acoustic waveforms can obtained as a function of measured depth).
Regarding Claim 7, Holland/Von Gonten/Burmester/Bennett teaches the limitations of Claim 7 which state
wherein the second measurement dataset is obtained from one or more images of the wellbore (Burmester: Para 0068-0072, 0094-0096 via getting fracture/fault and texture information from borehole images).
Regarding Claim 8, Holland/Von Gonten/Burmester/Bennett teaches the limitations of Claim 8 which state
wherein the third measurement dataset is obtained from resistivity mapping of the wellbore (Burmester: Para 0013, 0068-0072, 0077-0084 via using static and dynamic micro resistivity images and water-saturation/fluid-phase information).
Regarding Claim 9, Holland/Von Gonten/Burmester/Bennett teaches the limitations of Claim 9 which state
wherein the fourth measurement dataset comprises seismic information associated with the one or more fault surfaces (Bennett: Para 0020, 0034, 0093 via integrating sonic fault reflectors with larger scale surface seismic information… display maps that convey two-dimensional and three-dimensional spatial positions of the reflectors along the well track (which can be used for subsequent subsurface modeling and simulation workflows such as discrete fracture network modeling or modeling which ties these sonic imaging reflectors to the reflectors provided by VSP or seismic imaging)).
Regarding Claim 10, Holland/Von Gonten/Burmester/Bennett teaches the limitations of Claim 10 which state
generating, for each segment, a plurality of reservoir thicknesses for each respective distance along an analysis interval (Von Gonten: Para 0111-0115 via generating cumulative reservoir thickness continuously with depth, resetting the value at barriers over a specific interval), the plurality of reservoir thicknesses comprising a first reservoir thickness prior to completion of the segment and a second reservoir thickness associated with post completion of the segment (Von Gonten: Para 0107 via using pre and post fracturing measurements and updated the connected-fracture model); and
generating the completion recommendation based at least in part on the plurality of reservoir thicknesses (Von Gonten: Para 0112-0116, 0120-0123 via using cumulative thickness/production potential curves to select the recommended landing/completion location…further validating the recommendation).
Regarding Claims 11-12, and 14-19, they are analogous to Claims 1-2 and 4-9 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons (Holland: Para 0089).
Regarding Claim 20, it is analogous to Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons (Holland: Para 0089).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holland et al. (US 2014/0372094 A1) in view of Von Gonten et al. (US 2016/0313469 A1) in view of Burmester et al. (US 2015/024159 A1) in view of Bennett (US 2020/0003922 A1) further in view of Aithawad et al. (US 2017/0191348 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, while the combination of Holland/Von Gonten/Burmester/Bennett teaches the limitations of Claim 3 which state
(iii) a third risk flag indicating a distance to the one or more fracture pathways (Holland: Para 0056, 0059-0065, 0079-0081 via calculating various distances necessary to connect a seismic event to an existing fracture…evaluate candidate fractures and choosing the candidate having the minimum connection distance to the network…Von Gonten: Para 0045, 0061-0066, 0068 via providing risk/confidence levels to a classified geological condition),
and (iv) a fourth risk flag indicating the texture type (Burmester: Para 0013, 0068-0072, 0094-0096 via divides borehole image readings by depth/interval and assigns image texture classes…Von Gonten: Para 0045, 0061-0066, 0068 via providing risk/confidence levels to a classified geological condition).
However, it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 3 which state (i) a first risk flag indicating a presence of one or more fracture pathways to at least one of the one or more faults or the one or more fluid contact boundaries; (ii) a second risk flag indicating at least one of a distance to the one or more faults or a number of the one or more faults.
Aithawad though, with the teachings of Holland/Von Gonten/Burmester/Bennett, teaches of
(i) a first risk flag indicating a presence of one or more fracture pathways to at least one of the one or more faults or the one or more fluid contact boundaries (Aithawad: Para 0009-0010, 0023, 0117 via determining a model of a subsurface earth formation, having a well intersecting a complex geological network of a fault and a fracture in the formation…models the reservoir’s flow domain, including flow into and around the fracture network and nearby fault, flow allow along the fracture toward the well, and flow along/across the fault toward the fractured well…characterizing a complex flowing geometry with flow from fractures and faults…),
(ii) a second risk flag indicating at least one of a distance to the one or more faults or a number of the one or more faults (Aithawad: Para 0095, 0114 via distance to fault during model matching…Table 2 consists of measurements obtained).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Holland/Von Gonten/Burmester/Bennett with the teachings of Aithawad in order to have (i) a first risk flag indicating a presence of one or more fracture pathways to at least one of the one or more faults or the one or more fluid contact boundaries; (ii) a second risk flag indicating at least one of a distance to the one or more faults or a number of the one or more faults. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of forming models of fracture networks in a reservoir based on pressure transient test measurements obtained from a formation layer of interest in the reservoir as taught by Aithawad. 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 13, it is analogous to Claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thiel et al. (US 2021/0055448 A1)
Sequeira Jr et al. (US 2013/0140037 A1)
Pabon et al. (US 2017/0051582 A1)
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
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights