DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 3-16 are pending.
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
The most recent claim objections and 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the current arguments and amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argues the following:
“[...] Parfitt does not teach or remotely describe the arrangement of an inner core tube and head assembly in a known or otherwise detectable rotational position in a manner such as that described and claimed in the present application. Parfitt teaches a core orientation device (10) which is accommodated in an inner core tube assembly (36). As shown in Figure 2 of Parfitt (reproduced below), the inner core tube assembly comprises an upper part 36a and a lower part 36b with the upper part 36a including a bearing 40. In the assembly of Parfitt, however, it is important to recognize that the portion of the inner tube assembly above the bearing (i.e. the head assembly) is rotatable with the outer tube assembly, and the portion below the bearing, including the core orientation device (10) and the inner core tube is restrained against rotation. The bearing (40) of Parfitt therefore allows the core orientation device (10) to rotate relative the outer tube assembly, but not relative to the core sample. Indeed, Parfitt teaches that its head assembly and the lower portion of its inner tube assembly are rotationally decoupled, and that the core orientation device (10) and the lower portion of the inner tube assembly (36b) (i.e. the inner core tube) have a fixed rotational position relative to each other. See Parfitt at paragraphs [0058]-[0063].”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's representative’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). With that being said, Examiner notes that the Van Puymbroeck teaches a head assembly (i.e., assembly of “inner core barrel assembly” uphole of 330 — figure 6A) and an inner core tube (i.e., lower section of “inner core barrel assembly” downhole of 330 — figure 6A). The “head assembly” in Van Puymbroeck is known to be fixed to the drilling tubular “302” which is fixed in relation to one another, while the “inner core tube” is rotational in light of the bearings (see at least column 9, line 28- column 10, line 41). Specifically, Van Puymbroeck cites “[...] module 334 may include instrumentation 336 to determine borehole position and orientation (azimuth, slope, etc.)...” (column 9, line 66- column 10, line 8). Thereafter, Van Puymbroeck cites: “It will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that the directional instrumentation, as well as being used to track the course of the borehole, may (and is desirably) also used to develop and maintain a record of the orientation of the core as it is being cut, so as to correlate the core data with the borehole data obtained from the formation surrounding coring apparatus 300 and from which the core sample is cut” (column 10, lines 35-41). Examiner notes that to cure the deficiencies of Van Puymbroeck not teaching rotational orientation (as claimed), Parfitt was introduced as an additional teaching reference as being obvious 35 U.S.C. § 103, as Parfitt teaches determining rotational orientation/position of the core while being cut (paragraphs [0058-0060]). The modification of the orientation system, as taught by Van Puymbroeck, to include for having a rotational orientation system, as taught by Parfitt, is deemed obvious to one skilled in the art, as any rotational orientation system has (must) be recorded/measured with respect a reference point. In light of the modification, that reference point would be the “head assembly”/drilling sub housing (as taught by Van Puymbroeck) since they are both affixed to one another. Though, Parfitt teaches another way of measuring/recording the rotational orientation of the core using a different type of the coring tool which functions in a different manner, the modification was not focused on incorporating the additional features of Parfitt which Applicant’s representative is arguing. If Applicant’s representative is stating that the combination of both the references are incompatible due to one teaching away from another (or, something of the like), then detailed arguments need to be presented by the Applicant’s representative, as Examiner respectfully fails to see why a rotational orientation feature/sensor (as taught by Parfitt) cannot be used in combination with Van Puymbroeck’s sensing system. Examiner suggests incorporating more claim language (i.e. structural and/or functional) in light of the specification to overcome the prior art rejection and advance prosecution, preferably towards an allowance.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “[...] and wherein the method further comprises:...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Puymbroeck et al. (US Patent Number 6,006,844; herein “Van Puymbroeck”) in view of Parfitt (US Publication Number 2007/0282533 A1; herein “Parfitt”).
In regards to claim 1, Van Puymbroeck discloses: A method of enabling the acquisition of borehole survey data and core orientation data in a single instrument trip in a core drill (312) having a drill string (at least 302) and an inner core barrel assembly (i.e., “inner core barrel assembly” within the drill string 302, and coupled to downhole of 326 — figure 6A) having a longitudinal axis (i.e., central longitudinal axis of assembly — figures 6-9; also, see column 9, line 29- column 10, line 41), the method comprising:
running a borehole survey tool (328) through the drill string which is installed to the inner core barrel assembly (column 9, lines 41-47 and figure 6A), wherein the borehole survey tool is arranged to at least log its position in three-dimensional space (the first data point logged via the borehole survey tool 328 will intrinsically correspond to its positioning coupled/connected to 324 within the three-dimensional space of the drill string 302 — figure 6A and column 10, lines 22-41);
enabling the inner core barrel assembly to provide or facilitate detection of an indication tool face of a core sample held in the inner core barrel assembly (column 9, line 66 – column 10, line 41); and
transferring the indication of tool face to the borehole survey tool (column 10, lines 22-41);
wherein enabling the inner core barrel assembly comprises:
arranging the inner core barrel assembly so that a head assembly (i.e., assembly of “inner core barrel assembly” uphole of 330 — figure 6A) and an inner core tube (i.e., lower section of “inner core barrel assembly” downhole of 330 — figure 6A) of the inner core barrel assembly have a known or otherwise detectable position for a core orientation period which commences from a time at least immediately before the breaking of a core sample from in situ strata to a time at which the indication of tool face is transferred to the borehole survey tool (The “inner core tube” comprises of directional instrumentation 336 to determine orientation, e.g., azimuth, slope, etc., to develop and maintain a record of the orientation of the core as it is being cut, so as to correlate the core data with the borehole data obtained from the formation surrounding coring apparatus 300 and from which the core sample is cut. The data transmission device 342 from the “inner core tube” transmits the core sample orientation data to the “head assembly” which is rotationally fixed/connected to the coupling 324 to further transmit the orientation data of the core sample uphole via 328 — column 9, line 60- column 10, line 41).
However, Van Puymbroeck is silent in regards to: arranging the inner core barrel assembly so that a head assembly and an inner core tube of the inner core barrel assembly have a known or otherwise detectable rotational position about the longitudinal axis relative to each other for a core orientation period which commences from a time at least immediately before the breaking of a core sample from in situ strata to a time at which the indication of tool face is transferred to the borehole survey tool.
Nonetheless, Parfitt teaches an analogous downhole core drilling apparatus comprising a core drill (12) which is fixed to a “head assembly” (i.e., assembly of “inner core barrel assembly” 36 uphole of 36a) and an “an inner core tube” (i.e., lower section of “inner core barrel assembly” 36 downhole of 36a — see abstract and figures 1-2), similar to that of Van Puymbroeck. Parfitt teaches having an interface (27) which assists in detecting the rotational orientation (18) of the core via the core orientational indicator device (10) relative to the core drill comprising the fixed “head assembly” — paragraphs [0058-0063] and figures 1-2.
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the orientation system of Van Puymbroeck to also have a rotational orientation system, as taught by Parfitt, to provide an indication of the orientation of the core sample (paragraph [0005] of Parfitt).
In regards to claim 3, Van Puymbroeck further discloses: wherein enabling the inner core barrel assembly comprises permanently rotationally fixing the head assembly to the inner core tube in a manner which maintains a fixed rotational position (i.e., via of 320 and 322) of the head assembly to the inner core tube (see column 9, lines 29-57 and figure 6A).
In regards to claim 4, Van Puymbroeck further discloses: keying the borehole survey tool to the inner core barrel assembly in a predetermined rotational orientation about the longitudinal axis (i.e., arbitrary “predetermined rotational orientation” about the longitudinal axis which merely allows for the keying of the “borehole survey tool” to the “inner core barrel assembly”, as shown in figure 6A) relative to a known point (e.g., point in relation to 336 — figure 6A), wherein the known point has a known or ascertainable spatial relationship (e.g., longitudinal distance) to the tool face of the core sample (column 9, line 60- column 10, line 41 and figure 6A).
In regards to claim 5, Van Puymbroeck further discloses: wherein the step of arranging the inner core barrel assembly comprises providing a marker (i.e., indicator from 334) on the inner core barrel assembly (figure 6A), wherein the marker has a known rotational position relative to a known point (e.g., point in relation to 336 — figure 6A | Examiner notes that absent specific detail, since 334 and 336 are fixedly attached to one another within the “inner core barrel assembly”, it’s evident that the rotational positions with respect to one another are already known) and enabling communication between the borehole survey tool and the at marker (column 9, line 60- column 10, line 41).
In regards to claim 6, Van Puymbroeck further discloses: wherein the inner core barrel assembly is provided with a spindle (as shown in the annotated figure 6A below) coupling the head assembly to the inner core tube (column 9, lines 41-65);
enabling the inner core barrel assembly comprises releasably locking (i.e., via 320, 322) the spindle to prevent rotation of the head assembly about the longitudinal axis relative to the inner core tube during the core orientation period (see column 9, lines 29-57 and figure 6A).
PNG
media_image1.png
871
1075
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 7, Van Puymbroeck further discloses: releasably locking the head assembly to the inner core barrel assembly comprises activating a mechanism carried by the inner core barrel assembly by action of any one of: (a) physical contact of the borehole survey tool with the inner core barrel assembly or, (d) applying tension between the head assembly and the inner core tube (column 9, lines 41-65).
In regards to claim 8, Van Puymbroeck further discloses: enabling the inner core barrel assembly comprises: providing a core tube marker (i.e., indicator from 334) on or in the inner core barrel assembly (figure 6A), wherein the core tube marker has a known rotational position relative to a known point (e.g., point in relation to 336 — figure 6A | Examiner notes that absent specific detail, since 334 and 336 are fixedly attached to one another within the “inner core barrel assembly”, it’s evident that the rotational positions with respect to one another are already known); and,
enabling communication between the borehole survey tool and the core tube marker (column 9, line 60- column 10, line 41).
In regards to claim 9, in view of the modification of the preceding claim(s), Van Puymbroeck further discloses: wherein transferring the indication of the known rotational position (i.e., positions as taught by Van Puymbroeck | also, Parfitt teaches determining rotational position) to the borehole survey tool comprises communicating a location (i.e., position/orientation) of the core tube marker to the borehole survey tool via a relay device (i.e., the connecting element/end of the “head assembly” which couples to the “borehole survey tool” 328 receives data from 334/336 and transfers the data to 328 — Van Puymbroeck) on the head assembly (column 9, line 60- column 10, line 41 — Van Puymbroeck).
In regards to claim 10, Van Puymbroeck further discloses: wherein the inner core barrel assembly is provided with a spindle (as shown in the annotated figure 6A below) coupling the head assembly to the inner core tube (column 9, lines 41-65), and wherein the method further comprises:
providing a core tube marker (i.e., indicator from 334) on or in the inner core barrel assembly (figure 6A), wherein the core tube marker has a known rotational position relative to a known point (e.g., point in relation to 336 — figure 6A | Examiner notes that absent specific detail, since 334 and 336 are fixedly attached to one another within the “inner core barrel assembly”, it’s evident that the rotational positions with respect to one another are already known — column 9, line 60- column 10, line 41); and,
enabling communication between the borehole survey tool and the core tube marker at a time before or during the core orientation period (column 9, line 60- column 10, line 41).
PNG
media_image1.png
871
1075
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 11, in view of the modification of the preceding claim(s), Van Puymbroeck further discloses: wherein transferring the indication of the known rotational position (i.e., positions as taught by Van Puymbroeck | also, Parfitt teaches determining rotational position) to the borehole survey tool comprises communicating a location (i.e., position/orientation) of the core tube marker with respect to the longitudinal axis to the borehole survey tool via a relay device (i.e., the connecting element/end of the “head assembly” which couples to the “borehole survey tool” 328 receives data from 334/336 and transfers the data to 328 — Van Puymbroeck) on the head assembly (column 9, line 60- column 10, line 41 — Van Puymbroeck).
In regards to claim 12, in view of the modification of the preceding claim(s), Van Puymbroeck further discloses: fitting a core orientation system (i.e., system comprising 336 — Van Puymbroeck | i.e., system comprising 10 — Parfitt) to the inner core barrel assembly which is capable of determining a rotational position (i.e., positions as taught by Van Puymbroeck | also, Parfitt teaches determining rotational position) of the core sample held within the inner core tube (see column 9, line 60- column 10, line 41 — Van Puymbroeck | also, see paragraphs [0058-0063] of Parfitt); and, wherein transferring the indication of the rotational position (i.e., positions as taught by Van Puymbroeck | also, Parfitt teaches determining rotational position) to the borehole survey tool comprises electronically communicating the rotational position from the core orientation system to the borehole survey tool (column 9, line 60- column 10, line 41 — Van Puymbroeck).
In regards to claim 13, Van Puymbroeck further discloses: mechanically coupling (i.e., via 326) the borehole survey tool to the inner core barrel assembly and retrieving the inner core barrel assembly with the borehole survey tool (column 9, lines 41-47).
In regards to claim 14, in view of the modification of the preceding claim(s), Van Puymbroeck further discloses: using the logged position of the borehole survey tool and the transferred indication of a rotational position (i.e., positions as taught by Van Puymbroeck | also, Parfitt teaches determining rotational position) to determine an in situ position of the core sample (column 9, line 60- column 10, line 41 — Van Puymbroeck).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NEEL GIRISH PATEL/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676