CTNF 19/402,783 CTNF 90273 DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE Claims 1-20 are pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/26/2026 and 4/14/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation (a) Claims 1 and 12 have been interpreted herein, disjunctively, with respect to the “at least one” of “presence, spatial distribution, and concentration of the reactive component”, in that several specification references treat them disjunctively (e.g., at least [0158], [0222], [0352], [0355], [0364]), and [0369]. Additionally, spatial distribution is treated separately in the specification (e.g., at least [0068], [0369], and [0376]) and the application only discloses spatial distribution when the contrast agent composition is introduced at different levels of the formation. Conjunctively requiring “spatial distribution” analysis for claims 1 and 12 would be unduly restrictive for these claims in that claim 10 makes it clear that claim 1 (and, suggestively, claim 12) does not require introduction at different levels of the formation. It is suggested that the applicant amend claims 1 and 12 to include “one or more” instead of “at least one”. 07-30-03 AIA (b) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “information handling system” in claim 12. The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, is numbered 120 and referenced as such in the specification. See the related Section 112(b) rejection. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because the sheets are not numbered . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. 06-13 AIA The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “may be utilized” and “may be configured” are implied . Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The specification is objected to because, in paragraph [0032], the sentence beginning “Thus, the pulsed …” is grammatically confusing. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1, 12, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: in each claim, “evaluating least” should be “evaluating at least” (claims 1 and 12), and “formation configured” should be “formation is configured” (claim 16) . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 12 These claims include confusing grammatical treatment of what is required, being overbroad in that regard, allowing interpretations, e.g., “confirm the reactive component”. At least specification paragraph [0078] strongly supports the following interpretation which has been used by the examiner herein: “and analyzing the one or more formation logging measurements to confirm and/or characterize at least one of confirm, characterize, the presence, spatial distribution, and concentration of the reactive component within the subsurface formation fluid.” See the related “Claim Interpretation” above. Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1. Claims 13-20 depend from claim 12. Claims 1 and 12 There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the reactive component” in the last sub-paragraph”, in that the antecedent is “at least one” and no single reactive component of the at least one has been recited. Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1. Claims 13-20 depend from claim 12. 07-34-03 Claims 6 and 16 The term "optimal" is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 7 and 18 These claims are each rendered indefinite by the recitation of “other reversal methods” which is open-ended and does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. These claims lack the full, clear, concise, and exact terms necessary for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the boundaries of the invention Claim 12 As discussed with respect to Section 112(f) above, each of these claims has invoked Section 112(f) as to “information handling system” but the specification is unbounded with regard to corresponding structure. At least the published application paragraphs [0269], [0271], and [0273] discussions of corresponding structure includes “any other suitable device”, “Non-limiting examples”, and “non-limiting example”. These are unbounded limitations, thus the corresponding structures for "information handling system” in these claims is not duly limited as required when Section 112(f) is invoked. Claims 13-20 depend from claim 12. Claim 17 This claim is unclear in that no association of differential logging with the system of claim 12 has been recited. Note: It is believed that claims 16 and 17 were intended to directly correspond to claims 5 and 6. An amendment to that effect will overcome this Section 112(b) rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-8 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Coates et al. (U20030016012) [Coates] . Claim 1 Coates discloses a method for evaluating at least one reactive component within a subsurface formation [e.g., the formation about the borehole 107 and within the volume of investigation 109; Fig. 13; abstract; para. 0038] , comprising: disposing a downhole tool into the subsurface formation [at least 106; Fig. 13; para. 0037] ; introducing into the subsurface formation at a targeted depth a contrast agent composition [e.g., “The Injecting Contrast Agent Method” [ICAN]; Fig. 12; para. 0133-0136] which is reactive with at least one reactive component within a subsurface formation fluid [e.g., the contrast agent reacting with the components of the “formation brine”; para. 0133] , wherein one or more reaction products or byproducts are formed between the contrast agent composition and the at least one reactive component within the subsurface formation fluid [e.g., the reaction of the contrast agent with the components of the “formation brine” creates at least the mixed solution, i.e., a reaction product; para. 0133] ; performing one or more formation logging measurements capable of detecting one or more reaction products or byproducts or changes in the at least one reactive component within the subsurface formation fluid with the downhole tool 106 [e.g., nuclear magnetic resonance; para. 0133] ; and analyzing the one or more formation logging measurements to confirm and/or characterize at least one of confirm, characterize , the presence, spatial distribution, and concentration of the reactive component within the subsurface formation fluid [e.g., at least the concentration of the formation brine reactive components is determined as part of the overall determination of residual oil saturation, i.e., the formation brine concentration occupying the volume not occupied by the residual oil; para. 0133,0135,0136] . See the related Section 112(b) regarding this interpretation of the last sub-paragraph of this claim. Claim 2 Coates, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that the at least one reactive component within the subsurface formation fluid is Hydrogen [the water portion of the formation brine includes hydrogen, and the contrasting function is based on the hydrogen index, relaxation times, and diffusion, all involving hydrogen; abstract; para. 0005-0010; para. 0050-0058] , Hydrogen Sulfide, and/or Carbon dioxide. Claim 3 Coates, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that the formation logging measurements are pulsed neutron source, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) [abstract; para. 0133] , acoustics, electromagnetics, formation testing comprising formation fluid sampling analysis, and/or core sample analysis. Claim 4 Coates, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that changes in the at least one reactive component within the subsurface formation fluid may be a change in one or more physical properties measured by the formation logging measurements, wherein one or more physical properties comprise electrical conductivity [e.g., by the increase in pH caused by the known higher pH of the Mn-EDTA to the lower pH formation brine, thus causing an increase in electrical conductivity] , dielectric permittivity, nuclear density, neutron capture cross-section, acoustic velocity, acoustic impedance, porosity, and pore-size distribution. Claim 5 Coates, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses differential logging [para. 0018] . Claim 6 Coates, as discussed with respect to claim 5, discloses that differential logging comprises conducting an optimal baseline logging measurement prior to introducing the contrast agent, followed by optional one or more subsequent logging runs at controlled intervals after contrast-agent placement [para. 0018] , and ultimately, optionally a final logging measurement. Note: “controlled intervals” has been interpreted to require intervals of time, per “temporal” in the specification at paragraph [0185], and prior art will invalidate a claim even if the prior art makes no mention of the optional steps. Claim 7 Coates, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses performing a cleanup operation through acid wash treatments, controlled pressure drawdown, thermal stimulation, or other reversal methods [e.g., the cleaning resulting from subsequent production flushing at least part of the solution, such production thus reversing the introduction/injection of the contrast agent composition] . Claim 8 Coates, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that the contrast agent is an Amine and Amino-functionalized Compound [e.g., Mn-EDTA; para. 0133] , an Alkaline Earth Metal Hydroxide, a Metal-Organic Frameworks, organic epoxides, an Alkali Metal Carbonate Solution, and/or any combination thereof. Claim 11 Coates, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that the one or more formation logging measurements is on a logging while drilling (LWD) system [para. 0097] , wireline system, or a surface data logging (SDL) system. Claim 12 As discussed with respect to claim 1, Coates discloses a system comprising: a downhole tool [at least Coates 106; Fig. 13; para. 0037] disposed into a subsurface formation [e.g., the formation about the borehole 107 and within the volume of investigation 109; Fig. 13; abstract; para. 0038] configured to: introduce into the subsurface formation at a targeted depth a contrast agent composition [e.g., “The Injecting Contrast Agent Method” [ICAN]; Fig. 12; para. 0133-0136] which is reactive with at least one reactive component within a subsurface formation fluid [e.g., the contrast agent reacting with the components of the “formation brine”; para. 0133] , wherein one or more reaction products or byproducts are formed between the contrast agent composition and the at least one reactive component within the subsurface formation fluid [e.g., the reaction of the contrast agent with the components of the “formation brine” creates at least the mixed solution, i.e., a reaction product; para. 0133] ; and perform one or more formation logging measurements capable of detecting one or more reaction products or byproducts or changes in the at least one reactive component within the subsurface formation fluid with the downhole tool 106 [e.g., nuclear magnetic resonance; para. 0133] ; and an information handling system 50-58 [Figs. 10,13,14; para. 0019,0020,0041-0047,0088,0089] in communication with a bottom hole assembly [Figs. 13,14] and configured to: analyze the one or more formation logging measurements to confirm and/or characterize at least one of confirm, characterize , the presence, spatial distribution, and concentration of the reactive component within the subsurface formation fluid [e.g., at least the concentration of the formation brine reactive components is determined as part of the overall determination of residual oil saturation, i.e., the formation brine concentration occupying the volume not occupied by the residual oil; para. 0133,0135,0136] . See the related Section 112(b) regarding this interpretation of the last sub-paragraph of this claim. Claim 13 Coates, as discussed with respect to claim 12, discloses that the at least one reactive component within the subsurface formation fluid is Hydrogen [the water portion of the formation brine includes hydrogen, and the contrasting function is based on the hydrogen index, relaxation times, and diffusion, all involving hydrogen; abstract; para. 0005-0010; para. 0050-0058] , Hydrogen Sulfide, and/or Carbon dioxide. Claim 14 Coates, as discussed with respect to claim 12, discloses that the formation logging measurements are pulsed neutron source, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) [abstract; para. 0133] , acoustics, electromagnetics, formation testing comprising formation fluid sampling analysis, and/or core sample analysis. Claim 15 Coates, as discussed with respect to claim 12, discloses that changes in the at least one reactive component within the subsurface formation fluid may be a change in one or more physical properties measured by the formation logging measurements, wherein one or more physical properties comprise electrical conductivity [e.g., by the increase in pH caused by the known higher pH of the Mn-EDTA to the lower pH formation brine, thus causing an increase in electrical conductivity] , dielectric permittivity, nuclear density, neutron capture cross-section, acoustic velocity, acoustic impedance, porosity, and pore-size distribution. Claim 16 Coates, as discussed with respect to claim 12, discloses that the downhole disposed into a subsurface formation is configured to perform differential logging, wherein differential logging comprises conducting an optimal baseline logging measurement prior to introducing the contrast agent, followed by optional one or more subsequent logging runs at controlled intervals after contrast-agent placement [para. 0018] , and ultimately, optionally a final logging measurement. Note: “controlled intervals” has been interpreted to require intervals of time, per “temporal” in the specification at paragraph [0185], and prior art will invalidate a claim even if the prior art makes no mention of the optional steps. Claim 17 Coates, as discussed with respect to claim 17, discloses that the downhole disposed into a subsurface formation is configured to perform differential logging, wherein differential logging comprises conducting an optimal baseline logging measurement prior to introducing the contrast agent, followed by optional one or more subsequent logging runs at controlled intervals after contrast-agent placement [para. 0018] , and ultimately, optionally a final logging measurement. Note: “controlled intervals” has been interpreted to require intervals of time, per “temporal” in the specification at paragraph [0185], and prior art will invalidate a claim even if the prior art makes no mention of the optional steps. See the related Section 112(b) rejection regarding the relationship between claims 16 and 17. Claim 18 Coates, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses performing a cleanup operation through acid wash treatments, controlled pressure drawdown, thermal stimulation, or other reversal methods [e.g., the cleaning resulting from subsequent production flushing at least part of the solution, such production thus reversing the introduction/injection of the contrast agent composition] . Claim 19 Coates, as discussed with respect to claim 12, discloses that the contrast agent is an Amine and Amino-functionalized Compound [e.g., Mn-EDTA; para. 0133] , an Alkaline Earth Metal Hydroxide, a Metal-Organic Frameworks, organic epoxides, an Alkali Metal Carbonate Solution, and/or any combination thereof . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coates, in view of Benkley et al. (US11492535) [Benkley] . Claim 9 Coates, as discussed with respect to claim 1, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the contrast agent composition is distributed as a pill at the targeted depth. Benkley discloses introducing neutron contrasting agent into a wellbore, the agent being a pellet or bead [i.e., a “pill”; col. 7, lines 24-65] . It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Coates to introduce the contrast agent in the form of a pill/pellet/bead, such a contrast agent introduction form being disclosed by Benkley. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that a known contrast agent delivery form would be in place for introduction to the target depth of the formation. Claim 20 Coates, as discussed with respect to claim 12, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the contrast agent composition is distributed as a pill at the targeted depth. Benkley discloses introducing neutron contrasting agent into a wellbore, the agent being a pellet or bead [i.e., a “pill”; col. 7, lines 24-65] . It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Coates to introduce the contrast agent in the form of a pill/pellet/bead, such a contrast agent introduction form being disclosed by Benkley. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that a known contrast agent delivery form would be in place for introduction to the target depth of the formation . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coates, in view of Shen et al. (US20170350236) [Shen] . Claim 10 Coates, as discussed with respect to claim 1, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that introducing into the subsurface formation at two or more target depths two or more contrast agent compositions which are reactive with at least one reactive component within the subsurface formation fluid, wherein one or more reaction products or byproducts are formed between the two or more contrast agent compositions and the at least one reactive component within the subsurface formation fluid. As discussed at the related Section 112(b) rejection, the examiner has interpreted this to include a first contrast agent composition at a first depth and a second contrast agent composition at a second depth, where the contrast agent compositions are different. Shen discloses injecting different treatment agents into different zones in a multiple zone well [abstract; para. 0041] . It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Coates, to use different contrast agent compositions for different target depths, such differentiation being analogously disclosed by Shen for injecting materials into multiple zones. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the optimum contrast agent composition would be selected for each zone . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al. (US20110181278) discloses contrast agent injection and differential logging [para. 0024]. Dirksen et al. discloses contrast agent injection and differential logging [Fig. 8; para. 0031] . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE STERLING GRAY whose telephone number is (313)446-4820. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4 Eastern - M-F. 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. /GEORGE S GRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676 Application/Control Number: 19/402,783 Page 2 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 19/402,783 Page 3 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 19/402,783 Page 4 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 19/402,783 Page 5 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 19/402,783 Page 6 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 19/402,783 Page 7 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 19/402,783 Page 8 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 19/402,783 Page 9 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 19/402,783 Page 10 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 19/402,783 Page 11 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 19/402,783 Page 12 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 19/402,783 Page 13 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 19/402,783 Page 14 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 19/402,783 Page 15 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 19/402,783 Page 16 Art Unit: 3676 Application/Control Number: 19/402,783 Page 17 Art Unit: 3676
Prosecution Insights