The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 15, 2025 has been entered.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “one or more chemical sensors” was apparently intended in the final paragraph of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-7 and 10-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. With respect to claim 1, it is not clear what structure if any defines the one or more sensing chambers. Is it a single chamber that includes the complete interior of the conduit assembly, is there some structure that defines and/or separates the portion of the conduit assembly that constitutes a sensing chamber or is it simply a section of a conduit in which a sensor is disposed? For examination purposes, examiner will not place any particular structural requirements on the sensing chamber as long as there are one or more chemical sensors in a conduit/pipe. With respect to claim 6, is applicant attempting to require a second fluid supply line or further define the fluid supply line of claim 1 and/or its connection to the one or more sensing chambers? With respect to claim 10, if there is one sensing chamber, it is not clear what it is being separated from. If there are a plurality of sensing chambers, it is not clear if the one or more seals that separate the one or more sensing chambers separate the sensing chambers from each other or from some other structure such as the wellbore. In this respect it is not clear if the one or more seals prevent fluid communication between the sensing chambers such that each sensing chamber needs a structure to provide access to the downhole fluids or treatment fluid or if the one or more seals have a structure that provides access to the downhole fluids through the seal. For examination purposes, no particular structure will be required as long as the seal is capable of blocking fluid transfer between the sensing chambers and/or the wellbore. For example, the seals will be treated as covering a valve that is capable of blocking fluid transfer between the sensing chambers when the valve is closed. With respect to claim 11, it is not clear what structure if any defines the sensing chamber. Is the sensing chamber the complete conduit assembly in total, is there some structure that defines the portion of the conduit assembly that constitutes the sensing chamber or is it just the portion of the conduit assembly including the chemical sensor that constitutes the sensing chamber? For examination purposes, as noted above for claim 1, examiner will not place any particular structural requirements on the sensing chamber as long as there are a one or more chemical sensors in a conduit/pipe. With respect to claim 12, it is not clear what structural relationship the one or more apertures have with the sensing chamber and/or the conduit assembly. Are the one or more apertures openings at the ends of the conduit assembly, openings in a wall of the conduit assembly or do they have some other structural relationship with the conduit assembly or sensing chamber? For examination purposes, the apertures will be treated as at least an inlet and an outlet of the conduit assembly. With respect to claim 14, it is not clear if there is some structure that is actively causing the downhole fluids to circulate through the sensing chamber or if the circulation is not actively caused but simply based on diffusion through the apertures. For examination purposes, both possibilities will be treated as meeting the language of claim 14: circulation by passive diffusion through the aperture(s) or a pump that causes fluid to flow through the conduit assembly. With respect to claim 18, similar to claim 11, it is not clear if the plurality of sensing chambers are defined by some specific structure of the conduit assembly or if a single conduit with a plurality of sensors at different locations along the conduit is sufficient to meet the requirements of the claim. It is also not clear if the single fluid supply line of claim 11 supplies the treatment fluid to all of the sensing chambers through its connection to one of the sensing chambers, if the fluid supply line is separately connected to each sensing chamber, if there are a plurality of fluid supply lines less than the number of sensing chambers so that at least one supply line supplies treatment fluid to more than one sensing chamber or if there is a separate supply line to each of the plurality of sensing chambers. For examination purposes, examiner will not place any structural requirements to define the plurality of sensing chambers or connection of the fluid supply line to each of the plurality of sensing chambers as long as there are a plurality of chemical sensors. Claims not specifically addressed above are dependent from one or more of the above claims and fail to correct the issues of the claim(s) from which they depend.
Based on the following modified figure from the Tubel patent (US 6,268,911) examiner will attempt to show how the language of claim 1 could be interpreted.
PNG
media_image1.png
745
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the above figure, the horizontal line added by examiner to the lower right corner is a point at which a conduit assembly to be disposed in a wellbore is connected to a fluid supply line that is a different channel from the interior cavity of the conduit assembly. Due to a lack of a clear definition of what constitutes a sensing chamber and the fact that the claims covers a single sensing chamber that has one or more chemical sensors disposed therein allows examiner to treat the entire conduit assembly from the added horizontal line to element 415 as the sensing clamber with one or more chemical sensors disposed therein. Based on that annulus 400 down to the added horizontal line constitutes the fluid supply line channel connected to the conduit assembly. The figure clearly shows that it is filled with chemicals that are capable of passing by the one or more chemical sensors in the chamber that constitutes the interior of the conduit assembly.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10-14, 18-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tubel (US 6,268,911) in view of Maida (US 2013/0087328, newly cited and applied) and Burgess (US 5,434,084), Holland (US 2008/0319682) or Ascheman (US 2016/0299049). In the patent Tubel teaches systems utilizing fiber optics for monitoring downhole parameters and the operation and conditions of downhole tools. In one system fiber optics sensors are placed in the wellbore to make distributed measurements for determining the fluid parameters including temperature, pressure, fluid flow, fluid constituents and chemical properties. Optical spectrometric sensors are employed for monitoring chemical properties in the wellbore and at the surface for chemical injection systems. Fiber optic sensors are utilized to determine formation properties including resistivity and acoustic properties compensated for temperature effects. Fiber optic sensors are used to monitor the operation and condition of downhole devices including electrical submersible pumps and flow control devices. In one embodiment, a common fluid line is used to monitor downhole parameters and to operate hydraulically-operated devices. Fiber optic sensors are also deployed to monitor the physical condition of power lines supplying high electric power to downhole equipment. Figure 5 is a schematic illustration of a chemical injection monitoring and control system utilizing a distributed sensor arrangement and downhole chemical monitoring sensor system. Figure 6 is a schematic illustration of a fiber optic sensor system for monitoring chemical properties of produced fluids. Figure 7 is a schematic illustration of a fiber optic sol gel indicator probe for use with the sensor system of figure 6. Starting at line 8 of column 12, figure 5, described as showing distributed fiber optic sensors for use in a production well where chemicals are being injected therein and there is a resultant need for the monitoring of such a chemical injection process so as to optimize the use and effect of the injected chemicals. Chemicals often need to be pumped down a production well for inhibiting scale, paraffins and the like as well as for other known processing applications and pretreatment of the fluids being produced. Often, as shown in figure 5, chemicals are introduced in an annulus 400 between the production tubing 402 and the casing 404 of a well 406. The chemical injection (shown schematically at 408) can be accomplished in a variety of known methods such as in connection with a submersible pump or through an auxiliary line associated with a cable used with an electrical submersible pump. The figure shows one or more bottomhole sensors 410 located in the producing zone 405 for sensing a variety of parameters associated with the producing fluid and/or interaction of the injected chemical and the producing fluid 407. Thus, the bottomhole sensors 410 will sense parameters relative to the chemical properties of the produced fluid such as the potential ionic content, the covalent content, pH level, oxygen levels, organic precipitates and like measurements. Sensors 410 can also measure physical properties associated with the producing fluid and/or the interaction of the injected chemicals and producing fluid such as the oil/water cut, viscosity and percent solids. Sensors 410 can also provide information related to paraffin and scale build-up, H2S content and the like. Bottomhole sensors 410 preferably communicate with and/or are associated with a plurality of distributed sensors 412 which are positioned along at least a portion of the wellbore (e.g., preferably the interior of the production tubing) for measuring pressure, temperature and/or flow rate. The present invention is also preferably associated with a surface control and monitoring system 414 and one or more known surface sensors 415 for sensing parameters related to the produced fluid; and more particularly for sensing and monitoring the effectiveness of treatment rendered by the injected chemicals. The sensors 415 associated with surface system 414 can sense parameters related to the content and amount of, for example, hydrogen sulfide, hydrates, paraffins, water, solids and gas. In the system, the sensors 410 and 412 may be connected remotely or in-situ. In a preferred embodiment, the bottomhole sensors comprise fiber optic chemical sensors. Such fiber optic chemical sensors preferably utilize fiber optic probes which are used as a sample interface to allow light from the fiber optic to interact with the liquid or gas stream and return to a spectrometer for measurement. The probes are typically composed of sol gel indicators. Sol gel indicators allow for on-line, real time measurement and control through the use of indicator materials trapped in a porous, sol gel derived, glass matrix. Thin films of this material are coated onto optical components of various probe designs to create sensors for process and environmental measurements. These probes provide increased sensitivity to chemical species based upon characteristics of the specific indicator. For example, sol gel probes can measure with great accuracy the pH of a material and sol gel probes can also measure for specific chemical content. The sol gel matrix is porous, and the size of the pores is determined by how the glass is prepared. The sol gel process can be controlled so as to create a sol gel indicator composite with pores small enough to trap an indicator in the matrix but large enough to allow ions of a particular chemical of interest to pass freely in and out and react with the indicator. In figures 6 and 7, a probe is shown at 416 connected to a fiber optic cable 418 which is in turn connected both to a light source 420 and a spectrometer 422. As shown in figure 7, probe 416 includes a sensor housing 424 connected to a lens 426. Lens 426 has a sol gel coating 428 thereon which is tailored to measure a specific downhole parameter such as pH or is selected to detect the presence, absence or amount of a particular chemical such as oxygen, H2S or the like. Attached to and spaced from lens 426 is a mirror 430. During use, light from the fiber optic cable 418 is collimated by lens 426 whereupon the light passes through the sol gel coating 428 and sample space 432. The light is then reflected by mirror 430 and returned to the fiber optical cable. Light transmitted by the fiber optic cable is measured by the spectrometer 422. Spectrometer 422 (as well as light source 420) may be located either at the surface or at some location downhole. Based on the spectrometer measurements, a control computer 414, 416 will analyze the measurement and based on this analysis, the chemical injection apparatus 408 will change the amount (dosage and concentration), rate or type of chemical being injected downhole into the well. Alternatively a spectrometer may be utilized to monitor certain properties of downhole fluids. The sensor includes a glass or quartz probe, one end or tip of which is placed in contact with the fluid. Light supplied to the probe is refracted based on the properties of the fluid. Spectrum analysis of the refracted light is used to determine the and monitor the properties, which include the water, gas, oil and solid contents and the density. In addition to the bottomhole sensors 410 being comprised of the fiber optic sol gel type sensors, distributed sensors 412 along production tubing 402 may also include the fiber optic chemical sensors of the type discussed above. In this way, the chemical content of the production fluid may be monitored as it travels up the production tubing if that is desirable. The permanent placement of the sensors 410, 412 and control system 417 downhole in the well leads to a significant advance in the field and allows for real time, remote control of chemical injections into a well without the need for wireline device or other well interventions. Tubel as explained above does teach a conduit assembly having a single sensing chamber therein with one or more chemical sensors therein but does not clearly teach a conduit assembly with more than one sensing chambers formed therein.
In the patent publication Maida teaches downhole species selective optical fiber sensor systems. that include at least one optical sensor positioned in a borehole and coupled to an interface via a fiber optic cable. Each of the optical sensors includes a waveguide for conducting light, and a reagent region positioned between the waveguide and a fluid in the borehole to absorb a portion of the light from the waveguide, the portion being dependent upon a concentration of a chemical species in the fluid. A described method for operating a well includes deploying one or more downhole optical sensors in a fluid flow path in the well, probing the one or more downhole optical sensors from a surface interface to detect concentrations of one or more chemical species, and deriving a rate of scale buildup or corrosion based at least in part on the detected concentrations. Figures 3-4 show alternative downhole optical sensor system embodiments. In figure 1, a well 10 is equipped with a downhole optical sensor system 12. The downhole optical sensor system 12 is adapted to detect concentration(s) of one or more chemical species in the formation fluid 28. Paragraph [0015] teaches that the detected chemical species may be, for example, known to cause scale buildup and/or corrosion on one or more metal surfaces of the casing string 14. Alternatively, or in addition, the detected chemical species may be representative of one or more scale inhibitor substance(s) or compound(s) introduced into the formation fluid 28 to combat scale buildup on one or more metal surfaces of the casing string 14, or by one or more corrosion inhibitor substance(s) or compound(s) introduced into the formation fluid 28 to combat corrosion on one or more metal surfaces of the casing string 14. Paragraphs [0016][0017] teach that in figure 1, the downhole optical sensor system 12 includes an optical sensor 40 in contact with the formation fluid 28 at the bottom of the borehole 16 and coupled to an interface 42 via a fiber optic cable 44. The interface 42 is located on the surface of the earth 18 near the wellhead, i.e., a "surface interface". The optical sensor 40 includes a waveguide and is adapted to alter light passing through the waveguide dependent upon a concentration of one or more chemical species in the formation fluid 28. In figure 1, the fiber optic cable 44 extends along an outer surface of the casing string 14 and is held against the outer surface of the of the casing string 14 at spaced apart locations by multiple bands 46 that extend around the casing string 14. Paragraph [0027] describes figure 3 as showing an alternative embodiment of downhole optical sensor system 12 having the fiber optic cable 44 strapped to the outside of the production tubing 24 rather than the outside of casing 14. Paragraph [0028] describes figure 4 as showing another alternative embodiment of downhole optical sensor system 12 having the fiber optic cable 44 suspended inside production tubing 24. A weight 110 or other conveyance mechanism is employed to deploy and possibly anchor the fiber optic cable 44 within the production tubing 24 to minimize risks of tangling and movement of the cable from its desired location. Paragraph [0029] teaches that other alternative embodiments employ composite tubing with one or more optical fibers embedded in the wall of the tubing. The composite tubing can be employed as the casing and/or the production string. In either case, a coupling or terminator can be provided at the end of the composite tubing to couple an optical sensor 40 to the embedded optical fiber. Paragraph [0030] teaches that the well 10 illustrated in figures 1 and 3-4 offers two potential flow paths for fluid to move between the surface and the bottom of the well. The first, and most commonly employed, is the interior of the production tubing. The second is the annular space between the production tubing and the casing. Usually the outermost annular space (outside the casing) is sealed by cement for a variety of reasons usually including the prevention of any fluid flow in this space. Usually, the point at which it is most desirable to measure concentrations of potential scaling and corrosion agents will be the point at which formation fluid enters the borehole, i.e., the completion zone, or points of potential constriction, e.g., where the fluid enters the flow path and any branches, chokes, or valves along the flow path. Often, one optical sensor 40 will be sufficient, and it can be located at the end of the fiber optic cable 44 in one of the deployments described previously. Paragraph [0031] teaches that other well configurations are known that have a substantial number of flow paths, particularly wells designed to produce from multiple completion zones. It may be desirable to provide multiple optical sensors 40 so as to be able to individually monitor each fluid flow. Moreover, it may be desirable to provide multiple optical sensors along a given fluid flow path, as such a well configuration may create atypical pressure and temperature changes along the flow path and, in some cases, mixing with other fluid flows. While it is possible to provide such sensors by providing a separate fiber optic cable for each optical sensor, it will be in many cases more efficient to provide a single fiber optic cable with multiple sensors. Paragraph [0032] teaches that figures 5A-5C show various illustrative downhole optical sensor system 12 embodiments that provide multiple spaced-apart optical sensors 120A-120E, referred to collectively as the optical sensors 120 for a given fiber optic cable. Placed in contact with a formation fluid each of the optical sensors 120 may be adapted to alter light passing therethrough dependent upon a concentration of one or more chemical species in the formation fluid (e.g., in a fashion similar to the optical sensor 40 of figure 2). Other ones of the optical sensors 120 may be adapted to alter light passing therethrough dependent upon a concentration of hydrogen ions in the formation fluid to indicate a pH of the formation fluid. Still other ones of the optical sensors 120 may be adapted to alter light passing therethrough dependent upon a temperature or a pressure of the formation fluid. Paragraphs [0033]-[0039] provide a more detailed description of figures 5A-5C and how the chemical sensors operate. Paragraphs [0040]-[0041] describe a flowchart shown in figure 6 of a method 140 for operating a well (e.g., the well 10 of figures 1 or 3-4) including corrective actions that may be taken based the signal(s) of the senor(s). The corrective actions may include, for example, adjusting one or more fluid flow rates, circulating one or more inhibitors (e.g., introducing scale inhibitors or corrosion inhibitors), and replacing tubular strings (e.g., the production string 24 of figures 1 and 3-4).
In the patent Burgess teaches a device capable of continuously measuring the presence and concentration of an analyte or analytes and a method for using said device in a liquid and/or a gas phase reaction volume. The device comprises a sensor probe, a reservoir, and a detector. The device delivers reagent to the sensor probe in a flow method to directly and continuously renew reagent, thereby allowing the continuous measurement of the presence and the concentration of an analyte or analytes. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the sensor probe of figure 1 communicating with a series of other elements. The inflow tube (6) communicates with a pump and/or a reservoir that contains the reagent in a liquid or gaseous state of matter. The outflow tube (7) communicates with waste. The primary source of electromagnetic radiation (1) is a fiberoptic cable that communicates with a source of electromagnetic radiation and a modulator. The detection fiber (5) and the reference (2) communicate with a signal detector and a reference detector, respectively. Both the signal detector and the reference detector communicate with a demodulator and the signals are analyzed by computer. These various components are connected to the sensor probe by a conduit system (unnumbered in figure 2). Figures 1 and 2-5 show various configurations for the sensor probe. The sensor probe of figure 1 includes a reaction chamber (9), inflow tube (6), outflow tube (7), electromagnetic radiation source fiber (1), detection fiber (5), reference fiber (2), an end cap which acts as a secondary source of electromagnetic radiation (4) and consists of a translucent material (3) and may further contain a reflecting overlayer, and permeable membrane (8). The sensor probe of figure 3 has a variable length to increase the surface area of the permeable membrane (8), increase the volume of the reaction chamber to allow more time for diffusion of the analyte or analytes into the reaction volume and a defined path between the secondary electromagnetic radiation source (3, 4) and the detecting fiber (5). The inflow tube (6) extends through the length of the reaction chamber allowing reagent to flow along the length of the reaction chamber through a tube (12) in the secondary source (3, 4) and into a detection chamber bounded by nonpermeable walls (10) and toward the outflow tube (7). Thus, the sensitivity of this sensor probe is increased due to the increased reaction chamber length and increased surface area of the permeable membrane. The alternative embodiment of figure 4 has the analyte or analytes enter a reaction chamber via a frit or filtering device (13) and a sampling capillary tube (12). The reaction chamber is defined by nonpermeable barriers (11) and plugs which may be an epoxy filler material, which, at the distal end also acts as the secondary source of electromagnetic radiation (3). Figure 5 is a schematic of the sensor probe constructed in Example 1. The arrows show the movement of reagent through the reaction chamber and the movement of analyte across the permeable membrane. Column 7, lines 42-54 teaches that the problem with the fixed reagent optrodes has been the short life span of the usefulness of the sensor probe when irreversible reagent chemistries are used. The first attempt to solve this problem was to develop reversible reagent chemistries. However, reversible reagent chemistries limit the number of analytes that can be determined and the chemical specificity of the probe. This problem is solved by directly controlling the renewal of the reagent in the sensor probe. This is done by flowing reagent in a liquid or a gas medium from a reservoir into the reaction chamber of the sensor probe and out again to a waste collection.
In the patent publication Holland teaches a system and method of alternately purging an in-situ sensor with clean fluid and sampling a fluid volume of interest, in order to eliminate drifts and errors associated with the absorption of chemicals to the sensing elements of in-situ sensors. The system and method effectively processes the output of the in-situ sensor using this alternating sample and purge cycle to detect and identify chemicals accurately and reliably. The system and method also effectively reduce errors induced by temperature and humidity drifts in the ambient, and the sampled, fluid. Paragraphs [0003]-[0018] describe the sensors, the problems that are of interest and summarize the solution. Numerous technologies have been developed for detecting and identifying gaseous chemicals in a variety of situations with an in-situ chemical sensor, also known as a sampling or point chemical sensor. An in-situ sensor must have physical contact with the tested air and with the toxic chemicals to provide protection. In-situ devices often rely on drawing air, or other fluids, from the sampled environment on a continuous or intermittent basis. The sampled air, or fluid, may be tested in a number of ways to determine the presence or threat of toxic chemicals. By way of illustration, it may be passed across an array of polymers that are specifically designed to selectively absorb chemicals of interest (e.g., a toxic chemical which is to be detected by the sensor). As chemicals of interest are absorbed by such polymers in this array, physical properties of the polymer material, such as its electrical resistance, electrical capacitance, or resonant acoustic oscillation frequency, exhibit changes. Measuring any or all of these changes relative to an unexposed (or baseline) condition that may be recorded prior to absorbing the chemical of interest provides an indication of the chemical presence and a measure of the concentration or quantity of the chemical at the sample location. By measuring the response of multiple polymers within the array, each having a different affinity to different chemicals, it is possible to obtain a signature or fingerprint that is specific to each chemical and that can be used for identification. Once the array of the various polymers has been exposed to a certain chemical, that chemical remains absorbed to the absorbing polymers for extended periods of time, often until a new sample is drawn. But even if the new sample that is drawn through the array no longer contains that chemical, some or all of its molecules that were originally absorbed remain attached to the polymer for long periods of time, as the desorption of the chemical from the polymer is a slow process. Since the ability of the polymers of the array to absorb molecules of any kind is limited, once molecules are absorbed and until they desorb, the polymers of the array may become less sensitive to future chemical exposures because their dynamic range, i.e., the range of measurable physical change due to chemical presence, is reduced and the array cannot be used to reliably detect future chemical exposures until the chemical (or chemicals) that are already absorbed have completely desorbed and the polymers return to their original uncontaminated (or baseline) state. Such a process that reduces the detection sensitivity of the polymers is called "poisoning." In-situ sensors may be poisoned by high concentrations of the gases that they were designed to detect. Additionally, such absorbing polymers have been shown to exhibit sensitivity to environmental conditions such as water vapor, pollutant hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide (CO2), NOx, or other gases that may be present in ordinary or polluted environments. Further, it has been found that such polymers are sensitive to the environmental temperature. There is also evidence to suggest that extended exposure to atmospheric chemicals, aerosols (e.g., dust), and water vapor may degrade the polymer sensitivity to chemicals over time. Some aspects of various described embodiments, but not limited thereto, teach a system and a method in which drifts and errors associated with the absorption of chemicals to the sensing elements of in-situ sensors are eliminated and a well-defined and reproducible baseline is established before each measurement. The system and method allows for in-situ sensors, which may consist of surfaces or bulks that selectively absorb chemicals for the purpose of detecting the chemicals and/or measuring their concentrations, or may include drift tubes, concentration elements, ionization chambers, combustion chambers, or filters to be purged by gases that are free from those chemicals that can absorb to the sensing elements of the sensors or interfere with its other components. During the purge period, the polymers release much, or all, of the chemicals that they absorbed previously. Similarly, purging may either remove contaminations from the other components of in-situ sensors or simply extend their operating life. By releasing all or some of the absorbed chemicals the sensing elements and their accessories are restored, completely or partially, to their unperturbed state. In this state, each sensing element provides an output that is at or near a baseline or zero level. Depending on the type of sensor, if the sensor is used to detect gases, the gases that are used to purge the sensing elements may be noble gases such as helium or argon, inert gases such as nitrogen, compressed dry air, or ambient air that was drawn through a desiccating column and/or a purifying column such as an activated charcoal filter. Generally, the purge gas can be any gas that does not contain chemicals or aerosols that can absorb to the sensing elements, clog its components, or interfere with their operation, or any gas where the concentration of such chemicals has been reduced. The purge period may be of fixed or indefinite duration. However, since the rate of chemical desorption from the array elements may vary with the chemicals or pollutants absorbed in the elements, a consistent and repeatable baseline state may be obtained with a predetermined and fixed purge cycle duration that allows a majority of the chemicals to be desorbed. After a purge period, the sensor is switched into sampling mode. In that mode, the sample is drawn from the test area and passed through the in-situ sensor, through some or all of its accessories, or through or over the sensing elements. After a preset or indefinitely long sampling period the sensor is switched back into the purge mode. The purge-sample cycle may be repeated as often as needed or may be performed only once. for a more specific description of the system and its use in the method see at least paragraph [0027] describing figure 1.
In the patent publication Ascheman teaches a target-analyte permeation testing instrument (10) characterized by a sensor feed line (300nBout and 3005) conditioning system. Paragraphs [0001]-[0003] describe known permeation instruments used to measure the transmission rate of a target analyte, such as oxygen, carbon dioxide or water vapor, through various samples, such as membranes, films, envelopes, bottles, packages, containers, etc. (hereinafter collectively referenced as “test films” for convenience). Typically, the film to be tested is positioned within a test chamber to sealingly separate the chamber into first and second chambers. The first chamber (commonly referenced as the driving or analyte chamber) is filled with a gas containing a known concentration of the target analyte (commonly referenced as a driving gas). The second chamber (commonly referenced as the sensing chamber) is flushed with an inert gas (commonly referenced as a carrier gas) to remove any target analyte from the cell. A sensor for the target analyte is placed in fluid communication with the sensing chamber for detecting the presence of target analyte that has migrated into the sensing chamber from the driving chamber through the test film. Permeation testing instruments employ a very low mass flow through rate through the instrument to limit the creation of any pressure differentials in the instrument that could impact humidification of the test and/or carrier gases or create a pressure-induced driving force across a test film. This low mass flow rate through the instrument imposes a significant time delay between measurements from different testing cells as the feed line to the sensor is flushed with the carrier gas from the sensing chamber of the newly selected testing cell. A substantial need exists for a permeation instrument capable of contemporaneously measuring target-analyte transmission rates from a plurality of testing cells with minimal changeover time between measurements from different testing cells. Paragraphs [0033]-[0035] describe the setup and use of the device shown in figure 1. Relatively rapid contemporaneous measurement of target-analyte transmission rate through a plurality of test films F can achieved with the target-analyte permeation testing instrument 10. The method includes initial set-up and subsequent testing steps. The set-up steps include (i) obtaining a target-analyte permeation testing instrument 10 in accordance with the invention, (ii) loading a test film F into each of at least two testing cells 70n, (iii) providing a flow of target-analyte containing driving gas through the driving chamber 70nA of each testing cell 70n containing a test film F, and (iv) providing a flow of inert carrier gas through the sensing chamber 70nB of each testing cell 70n containing a test film F. Based upon the embodiment depicted in figure 1, the testing steps includes the sequential steps of (a) measuring target-analyte concentration in the sensing chamber 701B of a first testing cell 701 by setting the associated dedicate valve 801B to flow-through, setting the common channel valve 88B to flow-through, setting all other dedicated valves 802B to vent, and measuring concentration of target-analyte in fluid communication with the target-analyte sensor 200, (b) conditioning the instrument 10 for ensuing measurement of target-analyte concentration in the sensing chamber 702B of a second testing cell 702 for a conditioning period by setting the common channel valve 88B to vent, setting the dedicated valve 801B associated with the sensing chamber 701B of the first testing cell 701 to vent, setting the dedicate valve 802B associated with the sensing chamber 702B of the second test cell 702 to flow-through, and leaving all other dedicated valves (none depicted in the embodiment of figure 1) to vent, and (c) measuring target-analyte concentration in the sensing chamber 702B of the second test cell 702 by setting the common channel valve 88B to flow-through.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to create a conduit assembly capable of sensing a multiple locations using a plurality of sensors as taught by Maida in which the section of the conduit containing each sensor constitutes a sensing chamber or alternative forms of sensing chambers such as taught by Burgess, Holland or Ascheman which can be part of a conduit or pipe system and provide a structure to add a new reagent and/or other conditioning/purging fluid as taught by Burgess, Holland or Ascheman because of the ability sense at critical locations along a well as taught by Maida and to replenish the chemical needed for analysis and/or restore the sensitivity of the sensor(s) as taught by Burgess, Holland or Ascheman.
Applicant's arguments filed June 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the amendments, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been modified and the obviousness rejection has been modified.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), applicant has argued that the claim changes have addressed the issues pointed out by examiner. Applicant has not provided an explanation relative to how the changes overcome the issues raised by examiner. The changes were evaluated and the above explained/listed clarity issues either were not addressed by the amendments or were newly discovered. Thus the argument that the amendments addressed the previously outlined issues is not persuasive.
Relative to the obviousness rejection, examiner refers applicant to the modified figure from the Tubel patent and its explanation/interpretation by examiner above and instant figure 4. Applicant’s argument is that claims 1 and 11 have been amended to recite at least, "wherein the fluid supply line is a different channel than the interior cavity of the conduit assembly" which is something that is different than what the prior art teaches so that Tubel in view of Burgess and Holland or Ascheman does not teach each and every limitation of amended independent claims 1 and 11. If one interprets/limits the above added limitation in view of the structure shown for the conduit assembly and the fluid supply line with their respective connections as shown in instant figure 4, the argument is certainly true. However, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since claim 1 does not specify how the conduit assembly and the fluid supply line are connected, the interpretation put forth by examiner above referencing the modified figure from Tubel is within the scope of the instant claims. Thus the argument is not persuasive.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited art relates to a variety of sensing structures for deployment below the surface of the ground.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arlen Soderquist whose telephone number is (571)272-1265. The examiner can normally be reached 1st week Monday-Thursday, 2nd week Monday-Friday.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached on (571)272-1254. 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.
/ARLEN SODERQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797