DETAILED ACTION
In view of the appeal brief filed on 11/3/25, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new grounds of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
2/11/26
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 11/3/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jones et al. (US5969237) in view of previously-cited Liu et al. (CN102374960).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 11/3/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jones et al. (US5969237).
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.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et al. (US5969237).
Claim 11: Jones discloses an acoustic measurement device, comprising: a tubular conduit (pipeline) configured for a fluid to flow therethrough; a first sensor (probe 10) fluidly coupled to a first side of the tubular conduit and configured to be in contact with the fluid (col. 5, lines 36-44); a second sensor (sensor 20) fluidly coupled to a second side of the tubular conduit opposite the first side and configured to be in contact with the fluid (col. 5, lines 36-44); a waveform generator (pulser 30) coupled to the first sensor; and a data acquisition module (computer 60; col. 5, lines 1-18) coupled to the second sensor, wherein acoustic signals are transmitted from the first sensor to the second sensor in a direction generally perpendicular to a flow of the fluid in the conduit (See Figs. 1, 8).
Claim 12: Jones discloses the acoustic measurement device of claim 11, wherein the first sensor is a first piezoelectric disc (acoustic probe 10 including piezoelectric crystal. col. 5, lines 1-6, 36-43; Col. 6, lines 34-45.).
Claim 13: Jones discloses the acoustic measurement device of claim 12, wherein the first piezoelectric disc acts as a transmitting source (acoustic probe 10 including piezoelectric crystal. col. 5, lines 1-6; 36-43; Col. 6, lines 34-45.).
Claim 14: Jones discloses the acoustic measurement device of claim 11, wherein the second sensor is a second piezoelectric disc (including piezoelectric crystal. col. 5, lines 1-6, 36-43; Col. 6, lines 34-45).
Claim 15: Jones discloses the acoustic measurement device of claim 14, wherein the second piezoelectric disc acts as a receiver (col. 5, lines 6-18).
Claim 16: Jones discloses the acoustic measurement device of claim 11, wherein the waveform generator produces an electrical waveform that is swept through a pre-selected frequency range (end col. 5- top col. 6: The acoustic probe 10 should be capable of sending an acoustic signal having a duration, amplitude and frequency range suitable for the invention. Such signal may be a pulse or a "tone-burst"… If the signal is a tone-burst, it is directed into the oil in place of the spike, or pulse, just described. The tone-burst sweeps through the frequency spectrum selected for use and each frequency is detected and analyzed separately.)
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of previously-cited Liu et al. (CN102374960)
Claim 1: Jones teaches a system for monitoring fluid properties in real-time (process stream, Fig. 1, 8), the system comprising: a fluid inlet and a fluid outlet (fluid flows through the pipe from an inlet and outlet), sensor pairs (probe 10 and sensor 20) fluidly coupled to the pipe section and configured to be in contact with fluid passing therebetween (col. 5, lines 36-44), each sensor of the sensor pair being oriented perpendicular to fluid flow within each of the pipe sections and oppositely disposed from one another (see Figs. 1, 8).
Jones fails to teach a plurality of pipe sections forming the flow loop, wherein each pipe section of the plurality of pipe sections is in fluid communication with each other; and sensor pairs fluidly coupled to each of the pipe sections; wherein each of the pipe sections comprises an inner diameter that differs from each other pipe section; and wherein the sensor pairs measure fluid at different velocities corresponding to the differing inner diameters of each of the pipe sections.
However, Liu teaches a flow loop having a fluid inlet and a fluid outlet (Figs. 2, 3, 5), the flow loop comprising: a plurality of pipe sections forming the flow loop, wherein each pipe section of the plurality of pipe sections is in fluid communication with each other (205 Fig. 2; 306, 307 Fig. 3; 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521 Fig. 5); and sensor pairs coupled to each of the pipe sections perpendicular to fluid flow within each of the pipe sections (sensor manometers 204 Fig. 2; monometer 304, 305 Fig. 3; and pressure sensor pairs 504/505, 506/507, 508/509, 510/511, 512/513, 514/515 Fig. 5 ); wherein each of the pipe sections comprises an inner diameter that differs from each other pipe section ([0014] using a thin tube of 2 to 20 sections with different diameter of reducer pipe, under the same flow rate condition, generating different flow speed in the pipe space of different diameters); and wherein the sensor pairs measure fluid at different velocities corresponding to the differing inner diameters of each of the pipe sections ([0014] using a thin tube of 2 to 20 sections with different diameter of reducer pipe, under the same flow rate condition, generating different flow speed in the pipe space of different diameters. [0040-0041] the speed gradient created from constant flow pump moving fluid through decreasing diameter (reducer) pipes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the variable-diameter tube of Liu with the device of Jones in order to improve isoperimetric measurement efficiency (Liu, middle of pg. 4).
Claim 2: Jones in view of Liu teaches the system of claim 1. Jones teaches a wave generator (pulser 30) electrically coupled to the piezoelectric devices (col. 5, lines 1-5: A system that may be used to practice the present invention is shown in the block diagram of FIG. 1. In general, a pulse generator, or pulser 30, generates an electrical signal which is transmitted to an acoustic probe 10 that transduces the electric signal into an acoustic signal that is transmitted into the oil that is to be tested. Also see lines 6-30).
Claim 3: Jones in view of Liu teaches the system of claim 1. Jones fails to teach wherein the fluid flow is maintained at a continuous and constant volume flow.
However, Liu teaches wherein the fluid flow maintained at a continuous and constant volume flow (a constant flow pump 201, 301, 501).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a continuous flow with constant volume, as taught by Liu, with the device of Jones in order to improve measurement efficiency and thereby improve drilling fluid properties during drilling well production run (Liu, middle page 7).
Claim 4: Jones in view of Liu teaches the system of claim 1. Jones teaches wherein the sensor pairs are piezoelectric discs and utilize acoustic signals to measure fluid properties (acoustic probe 10 including piezoelectric crystal. col. 5, lines 36-43; Col. 6, lines 34-45.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Liu further in view of previously-cited Andle (US20050132784)
Claim 5: Jones in view of Liu teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein each of the pipe sections of the plurality of pipe sections comprise a size and length such that each of the pipe sections replicate pre-determined fluid shear rates.
However, Andle teaches the measurement of shear rate using acoustic wave sensors (title). Andle teaches that the shear rate is a function of the speed of the sample and the geometry of the capillary [0007].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teaching of Andle with the system of Jones in view of Liu in order to provide for measurement of viscosity at a controlled shear rate, preferably representative of the intended application (Andle [0018]).
Claims 17-19, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of previously-cited Gao et al. (US20170254197).
Claim 17: Jones teaches the acoustic measurement device of claim 11, wherein the sensor 20 converts the acoustic waves of the scattered acoustic energy encountering the piezoelectric crystal to an electrical signal (col. 6, lines 40-41), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the second sensor converts damped wave signals into an output voltage.
However, Gao teaches a fluid viscometer including a conduit 200 with fluid 202 flowing there through, piezoelectric source 204 and sensor 206, Fig. 2. Gao teaches the detection and recording of both the frequency response and amplitude (voltage) via the processor 208, Fig. 3 [0023-0024].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the piezoelectric sensor to detect voltage response signal as taught by Gao with the device of Jones in order to be able to calculate both a fluid viscosity and a fluid density (Gao [0023]).
Claim 18: Jones in view of Gao teaches the acoustic measurement device of claim 17. Jones fails to teach wherein the data acquisition device records a frequency response and voltage generated by the second sensor.
However, Gao teaches a fluid viscometer including a conduit 200 with fluid 202 flowing there through, piezoelectric source 204 and sensor 206, Fig. 2. Gao teaches the detection and recording of both the frequency response and amplitude (voltage) via the processor 208, Fig. 3 [0023-0024].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the piezoelectric sensor to detect both amplitude (voltage) and frequency of the response signal as taught by Gao with the device of Jones in order to be able to calculate both a fluid viscosity and a fluid density (Gao [0023]).
Claim 19: Jones in view of Gao teaches the acoustic measurement device of claim 18. Jones wherein the data acquisition device utilizes a fast Fourier transform routine (end col. 12- col. 13, line 15).
Claim 26: Jones teaches the system of claim 11, but fails to teach wherein the system is configured to use data acquired by the data acquisition module to predict a density and a viscosity of the fluid.
However, Gao teaches a fluid viscometer including a conduit 200 with fluid 202 flowing there through, piezoelectric source 204 and sensor 206, Fig. 2. Gao teaches the detection and recording of both the frequency response and amplitude (voltage) via the processor 208, Fig. 3 [0023-0024]. Gao calculates both viscosity and density [0023, 0038, 0041-0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the piezoelectric sensor to determine viscosity and density as taught by Gao with the device of Jones in order to be able to accurately calculate both a fluid viscosity and a fluid density in a hostile environment (Gao [0001]).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Liu further in view of Andle further in view of previously-cited vanOort et al. (US20150330213).
Claim 21: Jones in view of Liu further in view of Andle teaches the system of claim 5, but fails to teach wherein the flow loop is designed to replicate American Petroleum Institute (API) stipulated shear rates.
Andle teaches the measurement of shear rate using acoustic wave sensors (title). Andle teaches that the shear rate is a function of the speed of the sample and the geometry of the capillary [0007].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teaching of Andle with the system of Jones in order to provide for measurement of viscosity at a controlled shear rate, preferably representative of the intended application (Andle [0018]).
Jones in view of Liu further in view of Andle fails to teach wherein the flow loop is designed to replicate American Petroleum Institute (API) stipulated shear rates.
However, vanOort teaches viscosity measurements carried out at a rig site using test protocols and equipment standardized by the American Petroleum Institute (API) including 13-B1, 13-B2, 13C, and 13D [0003].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the flow loop of Jones in view of Liu further in view of Andle, including controlling volume flow rate (speed) and geometry, to replicate the API stipulated shear rates as taught by vanOort, in order to measure rheological properties of fluids for optimum maintenance and optimum wellbore hydraulic management (vanOort [0003]).
Claim 22: Jones in view of Liu further in view of Andle further in view of vanOort teaches the system of claim 21. Jones fails to teach six pipe sections of six different pipe diameters.
Liu teaches teach six pipe sections (capillary tubes 516-521) of six different pipe diameters (Fig. 5 shows six pipe sections 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521) of six different pipe diameters (see Fig. 5, page 6, Embodiment 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the variable-diameter tube of Liu with the device of Jones in order to improve isoperimetric measurement efficiency (Liu, middle of pg. 4).
Claim 23: Jones in view of Liu further in view of Andle further in view of vanOort teaches the system of claim 22, Jones in view of Liu further in view of Andle fails to teach wherein the six pipe sections are configured to replicate the following six pre-determined fluid shear rates: 5.11 s-1, 10.21 s-1, 170.23 s-1, 340.46 s-1, 510.69 s-1, and 1021.38 s-1.
However, vanOort teaches viscosity measurements carried out at a rig site using test protocols and equipment standardized by the American Petroleum Institute (API) including 13-B1, 13-B2, 13C, and 13D [0003].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the flow loop of Jones in view of Liu further in view of Andle, including controlling volume flow rate (speed) and geometry, to replicate specific API stipulated shear rates as taught by vanOort, in order to measure rheological properties of fluids for optimum maintenance and optimum wellbore hydraulic management (vanOort [0003]).
Claim 24: Jones in view of Liu further in view of Andle further in view of vanOort teaches the system of claim 21, Jones fails to teach six sensor pairs placed at each pipe section to measure the fluid properties at six pre-determined fluid shear rates.
Liu teaches six sensor pairs placed at each pipe section to measure the fluid properties at six pre-determined fluid shear rates (Liu teaches six sensor pairs; a pair for each respective pipe section, Figs. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a sensor pair, as taught by Jones, for each pipe section, as taught by Liu, in order to obtain measurements of the fluid at different velocities, thereby improving drilling fluid properties during drilling well production run (Liu, middle page 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 2/11/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855