DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-15 remain withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 29 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scoullar et al. (US 2019/0212272, hereafter Scoullar)
With respect to claim 1, Scoullar teaches an apparatus for solids analysis of a wellbore fluid, comprising: a pipe (x-ray translucent pipe 67) formed from radiolucent material, the pipe having a bore for conveying the wellbore fluid; an excitation source (x-ray source 64) for generating source x-rays; a collimator (collimating slit 64d) for directing the source x-rays to the wellbore fluid within the bore of the pipe; a detector (detector cards 70) for receiving fluorescent x-rays emitted by a first element of the wellbore fluid within the bore of the pipe; and a processor (processor 200) for determining a concentration of a first solid in the wellbore fluid based on counting fluorescent x-rays having energy levels corresponding to the first element. (par. 5-9, 49-51, 58-65, 72-74, Figs. 3-5, 31-33)
With respect to claim 4, Scoullar teaches the pipe is formed from at least one of a polymer material or a non-metal material. (par. 72)
With respect to claim 7, Scoullar teaches the wellbore fluid comprises at least one of low-gravity solids, high-gravity solids, a drilling fluid, a completion fluid, or a combination thereof. (par. 650)
With respect to claim 29, Scoullar teaches an apparatus for solids analysis of a wellbore fluid, comprising: a pipe (x-ray translucent pipe 67) having a cylindrical wall and a bore for conveying the wellbore fluid, wherein the cylindrical wall is formed from a radiolucent material; an excitation source for generating source x-rays (x-ray source 64); a collimator (collimating slit 64d) for directing the source x-rays through the pipe to the wellbore fluid; a detector (detector cards 70) for receiving fluorescent x-rays emitted by a first element of the wellbore fluid within the bore of the pipe; and a processor (processor 200) for determining a concentration of a first solid in the wellbore fluid based on counting fluorescent x-rays having energy levels corresponding to the first element, wherein the cylindrical wall is free of a window formed a different material for receiving the source x-rays into the bore. (par. 5-9, 49-51, 58-65, 72-74, Figs. 3-5, 31-33)
With respect to claim 32, Scoullar teaches the pipe is free of a window formed from a different material to receive the source x-rays into the bore. (par. 72-74, Figs. 31-33)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-6, 8, 30-31 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoullar
With respect to claims 2 and 30, Scoullar teaches an x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer including each of the excitation source, the collimator, the detector, and the processor. (par. 49-51) Although Scoullar does not explicitly teach wherein the XRF analyzer is handheld, this would have been an obvious alternative structure in order to provide portability which allows for flexibility in the analysis process.
With respect to claim 3, although Scoullar does not explicitly teach the XRF analyzer comprises a housing having a window, wherein the source x-rays exit the housing through the window, and wherein the fluorescent x-rays enter the housing through the window, and wherein a gap between the window and an outer wall the pipe is about 1 inch or less, it would have been obvious to provide a window in a separated device housing to allow the x-rays to reach the fluid and return to the detector. The optimum distance between the window and an outer wall of the pipe would be dependent upon a variety of factors, such as the size of the pipes or the size of the windows and therefore would be best determined through routine experimentation.
With respect to claim 5, although Scoullar does not explicitly teach the pipe has an inner diameter of from about 0.5 inches to about 2 inches, the optimum pipe size would be dependent upon a variety of factors related to dimensions of the entire system and therefore would be best determined through routine experimentation.
Additionally, although Scoullar does not explicitly state that the bore of the pipe is in fluid communication with a mud pit, Scoullar teaches the use in a variety of environments and one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that this would include a mud pit.
With respect to claims 6 and 31, Scoullar does not explicitly teach the pipe has an x-ray mass attenuation coefficient of from about 0.1 cm2/g to about 7 cm2/g, when exposed to x-rays of from about 10 keV to about 50 keV, the analysis of x-ray fluorescence is a known technique and the optimum system parameters would be dependent upon a variety of factors such as the general makeup of the fluid and the type of components being analyzed and therefore would best be determined through routine experimentation based upon knowledge of these techniques.
With respect to claim 8, although Scoullar does not explicitly teach the first element is selected from the group consisting of: barium, iron, aluminum, silicon, and chlorine, these are common targets of analysis in a drilling environment and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select the first element from this group.
With respect to claim 33, although Scoullar does not teach wherein the radiolucent material is fiberglass, this is a well-known material and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it an obvious alternative material for forming the pipe.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 17, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/JILL E CULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights