DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 § 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.
Claims 1-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject
matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-13 are directed to a drilling system (machine) and claims 14-17, 19 and 20 are directed to a method (process). As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis
in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claims 1 and 14 recites abstract limitations including (or substantially similar to): “determine a plurality of friction values between the borehole and the drill string, wherein each of the plurality of friction values corresponds to one of a plurality of measured depths; generate a profile of friction at the plurality of measured depths in the borehole based on dynamic data obtained from one or more surface or downhole sensors and measured with respect to each of the plurality of measured depths in the borehole”.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and
paper, and therefore recite mental processes. The mere recitation of generic computing elements does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Mental processes cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as well as decision-making steps which encompasses the limitations listed above. The claims do not require any action as currently worded. Thus, the claims recite abstract ideas.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of
the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural
phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners
evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a
practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the addition elements of “a drill string located in a borehole” , “one or more processors”, “a memory coupled to the one or more processors”, “ determine a plurality of friction values between the borehole and the drill string” and “based on the determined plurality of friction values as a function of the plurality of measured depths, alter at least one drilling operation.” Claim 14 recites the additional elements of “applying movement to a drill string of the drilling system, the drill string disposed in a borehole” and “based on the determined plurality of friction values as a function of the respective plurality of depths, altering at least one drilling operation”.
The recitation of “a drill string located in a borehole” and “applying movement to a drill string of the drilling system, the drill string disposed in a borehole” includes additional elements whose functions are recited at a high level of generality and are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, the elements of “one or more processors”, “a memory coupled to the one or more processors”, “ determine a plurality of friction values between the borehole and the drill string” and “based on the determined plurality of friction values as a function of the plurality of measured depths, alter at least one drilling operation.” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical applications because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the recitation of “a drill string located in a borehole” and “applying movement to a drill string of the drilling system, the drill string disposed in a borehole” merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim(s) add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Furthermore, as taught by Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), additional elements of “cellular telephones” did limit the use of the abstract idea of “providing out-of-region access to regional broadcast content”, however the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cellular telephones) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Regarding the recitation of “determine a plurality of friction values between the borehole and the drill string” amounts to mere data gathering because this step is directed to retrieving friction values to perform the abstract idea. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The recitation of “one or more processors” and “a memory coupled to the one or more processors” amounts to “apply it.” These elements contain mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Finally, the recitation of “based on the determined plurality of friction values as a function of the plurality of measured depths, alter at least one drilling operation.” is directed to “apply it" because this step contains mere instructions to execute the abstract idea. Thus, this step does not add significantly more to the abstract ideas as it is simply applying the abstract idea. In re Brown, 645 Fed. Appx. 1014, 1015-16 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add
significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claims 2-5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 20 further recite abstract steps that are directed to mere data gathering because these steps are directed types of parameter values that are then used to perform the abstract idea. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Therefore, similar to claims 1 and 14, these claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and are not significantly more.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites limitations which are directed to apply it because the claim merely recites instructions to display sets of information, i.e. the determined friction values, on a computer display of the drilling system. Thus, this step does not add significantly more to the abstract ideas as it is simply applying the abstract idea. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Therefore, similar to claim 1, this claim does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “determine whether a friction value of the plurality of friction values exceeds a threshold or falls outside a target range therefor” which further recites an abstract ideas because nothing in this limitations prevents it from being practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Furthermore, the step of “perform a corrective action responsive to determining that the friction value exceeds the threshold or falls outside the target range therefor.” is merely “apply it" because this step contains mere instructions to execute the abstract idea. Thus, this step does not add significantly more to the abstract ideas as it is simply applying the abstract idea. In re Brown, 645 Fed. Appx. 1014, 1015-16 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). Therefore, similar to claim 1, this claim does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “the instructions configured to determine the plurality of friction values comprise instructions configured to cause the drilling system to fit a model to a measured plurality of torques to determine one or more of a reactive torque, a spring torque, a dynamic torque, a forward static friction, a reverse static friction, or an average static friction.” Which further recites an abstract ideas because nothing in this limitations prevents it from being practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Therefore, similar to claim 1, this claim does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Regarding claim 17, the recitation of “oscillatory angular movement” is well-understood, routine and conventional as taught by Switzer (U.S. Publication No. 20220003063) which discloses convention oscillation tool to exert oscillatory movement on the drill string to help mitigate friction (pp[0037]). Therefore, similar to claim 14, this claim does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “determining whether a friction value of the plurality of friction values exceeds a threshold or falls outside a target range therefor” Which further recites an abstract ideas because nothing in this limitations prevents it from being practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Further, the recitation of “performing a corrective action responsive to determining that the friction value exceeds the threshold or falls outside the target range therefor” merely amounts to “apply it" because this step contains mere instructions to execute the abstract idea. Thus, this step does not add significantly more to the abstract ideas as it is simply applying the abstract idea. In re Brown, 645 Fed. Appx. 1014, 1015-16 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). Therefore, similar to claim 14, this claim does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “a plurality of torque values corresponding to oscillatory movement of the drill string“ and this limitation is indefinite because the relationship between the “plurality of torque values” and “oscillatory movement of the drill string” is unclear because claim does not specify what “corresponding to” entails. The term “corresponding to” is a relative phrase that lacks a clear standard of measure or a defined relationship between the “torque values” and “oscillatory movement of the drill string”. As such, it is unclear what specific relationship, e.g. mathematical or physical, must exist between the “torque values” and ”oscillatory movement of the drill string”. Does “corresponding to” mean that the torque values are measured during oscillation, causing oscillation or calculated as a result of oscillation? Due to the lack of a clear functional link between “torque values” and “oscillatory movement of the drill string”, the relationship between these two elements remain unclear. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret this limitation as the torque values are obtained during drilling operation where there is some degree of oscillation (vibration) present due to the nature of the drilling operation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7,9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Annaiyappa (U.S. Publication No. 20200063533).
Regarding claim 1, Annaiyappa teaches a drilling system comprising:
a drill string (120; Fig. 1) located in a borehole (112);
one or more processors (a logic device 130, such as a microprocessor; pp[0055]); and
a memory coupled to the one or more processors (logic device 130 can be coupled with a memory device 132;pp[0055]) the memory comprising instructions configured to cause the drilling system to (pp[0055]):
determine a plurality of friction values between the borehole and the drill string (The mud travel time data, actual rotation travel time data, theoretical rotation travel time data, and other travel time data can be used to determine a resistance to movement, i.e. friction, of the drill string in the wellbore 112; pp[0017], [0027], [0031]), wherein each of the plurality of friction values corresponds to one of a plurality of measured depths (A wellbore friction model can be created based on the friction values calculated along the wellbore. The friction values calculated at each location of the wellbore can include all friction acting on the drill string when the drill bit (or BHA) is at that location in the wellbore; pp[0018], [0048]);
generate a profile of friction at the plurality of measured depths in the borehole based on dynamic data obtained from one or more surface or downhole sensors (sensors to obtain dynamic data; pp[0032]) and measured with respect to each of the plurality of measured depths in the borehole (the amount of friction calculated at the previous location should be removed from the friction values at the current location to determine the incremental change in the friction profile that has occurred when the drill string was extended into the wellbore the distance from the last location to the current location. As the drill string is further extended into the wellbore, this process can be repeated to develop an incremental friction profile of the wellbore that can be used to develop a friction model of the wellbore; pp[0017], [0018], [0041], [0048]); and
based on the determined plurality of friction values as a function of the plurality of measured depths, alter at least one drilling operation (adjusting 210 a control parameter of the wellbore in view of the friction model. By way of non-limiting example, adjusting 210 the control parameter can adjust at least one operation including: tracking rotational orientation of a portion of the face 108 of the bit 104, adjustment of wellbore 112 fluid flow rate, adjustment of drill string 120 rotational speed, adjustment of drill string 120 torque, determining movements of the drill string 120 to reduce friction along the drill string 120, or any combination thereof; pp[0054]).
Regarding claim 14, Annaiyappa teaches a method performed by a drilling system comprising:
applying movement to a drill string of the drilling system (rotation of the drill string 120 via top drive or drive unit; pp[0017], [0025], [0032], the drill string disposed in a borehole (112; Fig. 1);
determining a plurality of friction values between the borehole and the drill string, including generating a profile of friction at a respective plurality of depths in the borehole based on data measured with respect to each of the depths in the borehole (the amount of friction calculated at the previous location should be removed from the friction values at the current location to determine the incremental change in the friction profile that has occurred when the drill string was extended into the wellbore the distance from the last location to the current location. As the drill string is further extended into the wellbore, this process can be repeated to develop an incremental friction profile of the wellbore that can be used to develop a friction model of the wellbore; pp[0017], [0018], [0041], [0048]); and
based on the determined plurality of friction values as a function of the respective plurality of depths, altering at least one drilling operation (adjusting 210 a control parameter of the wellbore in view of the friction model. By way of non-limiting example, adjusting 210 the control parameter can adjust at least one operation including: tracking rotational orientation of a portion of the face 108 of the bit 104, adjustment of wellbore 112 fluid flow rate, adjustment of drill string 120 rotational speed, adjustment of drill string 120 torque, determining movements of the drill string 120 to reduce friction along the drill string 120, or any combination thereof; pp[0054]).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Annaiyappa teaches (or substantially similar to) wherein the plurality of friction values are determined and the profile of friction is generated when a bit of the drilling system is on bottom (this is implicit because the friction values calculated at each location of the wellbore can include all friction acting on the drill string when the drill bit (or BHA) is at that location in the wellbore, i.e. on bottom; pp[0018], Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Annaiyappa teaches (or substantially similar to) wherein the plurality of friction values are determined and the profile of friction is generated when a bit of the drilling system is off bottom (this is implicit because the friction values calculated at each location of the wellbore can include all friction acting on the drill string when the drill bit (or BHA) is at that location in the wellbore, i.e. off bottom; pp[0018], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Annaiyappa teaches , wherein the dynamic data comprises a plurality of torque values corresponding to torsional movement of the drill string (at least one of the drill string 120 and bit 104 (or bottom hole assembly associated with the bit 104) can be adapted to measure a received torque profile; pp[0047]).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Annaiyappa teaches wherein the dynamic data comprises a plurality of torque values corresponding to oscillatory movement of the drill string (bit 104 (or bottom hole assembly associated with the bit 104) can be adapted to measure a received torque profile or a received speed profile from the dill string 120. In an embodiment, the bit 104 (or bottom hole assembly) can include one or more sensors adapted to detect the occurrence of the torque; pp[0047]).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Annaiyappa teaches (or substantially similar to) wherein the instructions configured to cause the drilling system to alter at least one drilling operation comprise instructions configured to cause the drilling system to perform one or more of: adjusting a spindle position based on one or more of the plurality of friction values in the borehole; responsive to an identified increase in friction, adjusting one or more drilling parameters to mitigate one or more of: hole cleaning, a stuck pipe, tortuosity; increasing a block velocity upon determining an increase in the one or more of the plurality of friction values; or applying a modified torque on a bottom hole assembly during rotary drilling, including increasing the block velocity by an amount corresponding to a computed lost torque as a function of the one or more of the plurality of friction values (adjusting 210 the control parameter can adjust a wellbore control parameter such as adjusting a valve on a mud pump, altering a torque or speed of the drill string 120 at a drive unit 118, adjusting or tracking rotational orientation of a portion of the face 108 of the bit 104 or other portion of the bottom hole assembly, adjusting the movement of the drill string 120 to reduce friction along the drill string 120, or a combination thereof performed to control a wellbore 112; pp[0054]).
Regarding claim 7, Annaiyappa teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the drilling system to: display a visualization of the determined plurality of friction values on a display of the drilling system (the system 100 can include a display apparatus 128 adapted to display the electronic data, or a representation thereof, on a user-viewable display. The display apparatus 128 can be adapted to display electronic data corresponding to the friction model on a user-viewable display; pp[0039], [0052]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Annaiyappa teaches (or substantially similar to) the instructions further comprising instructions configured to cause the drilling system to: determine whether a friction value of the plurality of friction values exceeds a threshold or falls outside a target range therefor (Its implicit that aa friction value of the plurality exceeds a threshold because Annaiyappa seeks to reduce friction; pp[0054],[0207])), and perform a corrective action responsive to determining that the friction value exceeds the threshold or falls outside the target range therefor (adjusting 210 the control parameter can adjust at least one operation including: tracking rotational orientation of a portion of the face 108 of the bit 104, adjustment of wellbore 112 fluid flow rate, adjustment of drill string 120 rotational speed, adjustment of drill string 120 torque, determining movements of the drill string 120 to reduce friction along the drill string 120; pp[0054]).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Annaiyappa teaches determine the plurality of friction values comprise instructions configured to cause the drilling system to: determine a first friction parameter at a first measured depth of the borehole; advance the drill string in the borehole; and determine a second friction parameter at a second measured depth of the borehole (the friction values can be calculated at a plurality of approximately equally spaced locations in the wellbore or at a plurality of approximately equally spaced apart time periods during drilling operations. Therefore, a first friction parameter is measured at a first measured depth of the borehole and a second friction parameter is measured at a second measured depth of the borehole as the depths are equally spaced apart; pp[0017]).
Regarding claim 12, Annaiyappa teaches wherein each of the plurality of measured depths are different (the friction values can be calculated at a plurality of approximately equally spaced locations in the wellbore or at a plurality of approximately equally spaced apart time periods during drilling operations. Therefore, each friction value will be measured at different depths that are equally spaced apart; pp[0017]).
Regarding claim 13, Annaiyappa teaches wherein each of the plurality of friction values is determined at a survey point (the friction values can be calculated at a plurality of approximately equally spaced locations in the wellbore or at a plurality of approximately equally spaced apart time periods during drilling operations. Therefore, each location where a friction value is measure is “a survey point”; pp[0017]).
Regarding claim 17, Annaiyappa teaches wherein the movement comprises one or more of: torsional movement or oscillatory angular movement (adjusting the rotational speed of the drill string 120 can be performed by adjusting a speed or torque of the drive unit 118; pp[0041]. Adjusting speed or torque of the drilling operation will cause torsional movement or oscillatory angular movement.).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annaiyappa (U.S. Publication No. 20200063533).
Regarding claim 8. Annaiyappa teaches the drilling system of claim 1, wherein the instructions configured to determine the plurality of friction values between the borehole and the drill string comprise instructions configured to determine friction (A wellbore friction model can be created based on the friction values calculated along the wellbore. The friction values calculated at each location of the wellbore can include all friction acting on the drill string when the drill bit (or BHA) is at that location in the wellbore; pp[0018], [0048]).
Annaiyappa discloses the need to accurately determine or correct wellbore operations such as stiction or even kinetic friction (pp[0006]) but does not specify if the friction is a forward static friction, a reverse static friction, or an average static friction.
However, there are a limited number of types of static frictions to compute and the drill string of Annaiyappa primarily moves forwards and backwards (Fig. 1: The borehole may have any suitable subterranean configuration, such as generally vertical and horizontal) and Annaiyappa discusses overcoming static friction (pp[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ), to have modified the drilling system of Annaiyappa to compute a specific forward or backward static friction in order to prevent damage to the drilling system (pp[0058]).
Regarding claim 10, Annaiyappa teaches the drilling system of claim 1, wherein the instructions configured to determine the plurality of friction values comprise instructions configured to cause the drilling system to fit a model to a measured plurality of torques ( the frictional model can be adjusted by comparing the input torque profile, as caused at or near the surface, to the received torque profile; pp[0050]) to determine one or more of friction (pp[0050]).
Annaiyappa discloses the need to accurately determine or correct wellbore operations such as stiction or even kinetic friction (pp[0006]) but does not specify if the friction is a forward static friction, a reverse static friction, or an average static friction.
However, there are a limited number of types of static frictions to compute and the drill string of Annaiyappa primarily moves forwards and backwards (Fig. 1: The borehole may have any suitable subterranean configuration, such as generally vertical and horizontal) and Annaiyappa discusses overcoming static friction (pp[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ), to have modified the drilling system of Annaiyappa to compute a specific forward or backward static friction in order to prevent damage to the drilling system (pp[0058]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lamia Quaim whose telephone number is (469)295-9199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM - 6PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/LAMIA QUAIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3676