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 .
The amendment filed on March 3, 2026 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “306” has been used to designate both an active material (paragraph 0037) and a source package shielding material (paragraph 0038).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a motor” (claim 1), “a first shielding material” (claims 5, 9), “a second shielding material” (claims 5, 11), “a rotatable shield” (claim 12) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, “the second position (of the source package) being aligned with the opening to permit emission of gamma rays from the gamma ray source through the opening” (lines 14-15) is misdescriptive. For instance, Fig. 3B shows a second position of the source package (320). However, the source package (302) is not aligned with the opening (330) to permit emission of gamma rays from the gamma ray source (306).
Claim 9, “the first shielding material being movable from a first position blocking the aperture” is misdescriptive. For instance, Fig. 3A shows a first position of the first shielding material (304). However, Fig. 3A does not show the first shielding material
(304) blocking the aperture (330).
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inanc et al. (US 2020/0132880) in view of Ingle et al. (US 4,262,964).
Regarding claim 1, Inanc et al. discloses a downhole logging system (Abstract), comprising:
a gamma ray source (114) positioned within a logging tool (102) (Fig. 1), the gamma ray source (114) to emit radiation into an area surrounding the logging tool (paragraph 0027, lines 3-6);
a collimator associated with the gamma ray source, the collimator having an opening to direct a flow of radiation into the formation to permit gamma ray scanning of the formation (paragraph 0021, lines 1-10);
a radiation detector (116) operable to detect backscatter radiation from the area (Abstract, lines 3-5);
a motor to rotate the collimator in a stepping fashion (via stepper motor, paragraph 0040, line 27) for scanning a borehole (motor 620/622 rotates tool within well 104, paragraph 0040, lines 10-27); and
a first position being misaligned with the opening (the housings are not aligned to form a path of gamma rays, paragraph 0031, lines 9-11) and the second position being aligned with the opening (the housings are aligned to form a path of gamma rays, paragraph 0031, lines 9-11).
It is noted that the motor to rotate the collimator in either a continuous fashion is not required because it is recited in the alternative form.
Inanc et al. does not disclose an actuator associated with the source package the
actuator moving the source package linearly between a first position and a second position, the first position being misaligned with the opening to block emission of gamma rays from the gamma ray source through the opening and the second position being aligned with the opening to permit emission of gamma rays from the gamma ray source through the opening.
Ingle et al. discloses an actuator (424) associated with the source package (440), the actuator moving the source package (440) linearly between a first position and a second position (424 moves 440 linearly sideway, Fig. 8), the first position being misaligned with the opening (first position where opening 456 is misaligned with opening 454, Fig. 8) to block emission of gamma rays (to block emission of radiation through opening 454, Fig. 8) from the gamma ray source (440) through the opening
(454) and the second position being aligned with the opening (position where opening
456 is aligned with opening 454, Fig. 8) to permit emission of gamma rays (to permit emission of radiation through openings 456, 454, Fig. 8) from the gamma ray source through the opening (454).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Inanc et al. with an actuator associated with the source package as disclosed by Ingle et al. for the purpose of moving the source package linearly between a first position for not emitting radiation and a second position for emitting radiation.
Regarding claim 3, Inanc et al. does not disclose the source package shielding material is coupled to the actuator.
Ingle et al. discloses a source package shielding material (plate 406) is coupled to the actuator (424) (column 19, lines 10-11 for moving the gamma ray source to a position to emit radiation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Inanc et al. with a source package shielding material coupled to the actuator as disclosed by Ingle et al. for the purpose of moving the gamma ray source to a position to emit radiation.
Regarding claim 4, Inanc et al. discloses:
a source receptacle to receive the gamma ray source (shielding housings around the gamma ray source, paragraph 0031, lines 5-6), the source receptacle being coupled to the source package shielding material (housings are shielding housings, paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 5, Inanc et al. discloses the source receptacle comprises:
a first shielding material to move between the first position, covering the opening, and the second position, misaligned with the opening (first and second positions of one of the shielding housings are obtained by rotating one of the shielding housings, where the rotating shield can cover/uncover apertures, paragraph 0031, lines 5-13);
a low density attenuating material, surrounding at least a portion of the gamma ray source (less dense materials of shielding housing, paragraph 0031, lines 12-13, around the gamma ray source, paragraph 0031, lines 5-6); and
a second shielding material (dense materials) configured to couple to the source package shielding material (dense materials of the shielding housings, paragraph 0031, line 12).
Regarding claim 9, Inanc et al. discloses a downhole logging tool (Abstract), comprising:
a housing (housing(s), paragraph 0031, lines 5-6), the housing having an aperture (aperture(s), paragraph 0031, line 13) to permit emission of radioactive materials from the housing (paragraph 0031, lines 9-11);
a source package (gamma ray source, housing(s), paragraph 0031, lines 5-6), comprising:
a gamma ray source (gamma ray source, paragraph 0031, lines 5-6);
a source package shielding material (shielding material in shielding
materials in shielding housing(s), paragraph 0031, line 5);
a source receptacle (receptacle(s) of gamma ray source formed by housing(s), paragraph 0031, lines 5-6), comprising:
a first shielding material, the first shielding material being movable from a
first position blocking the aperture and a second position misaligned with the aperture (first and second positions of one of the shielding housings are obtained by rotating one of the shielding housings, where the rotating shield can cover/uncover apertures, paragraph 0031, lines 5-13); and
a low density attenuating material, positioned to at least partially surround
the gamma ray source (less dense materials of shielding housing, paragraph 0031, lines 12-13, around the gamma ray source, paragraph 0031, lines 5-6), the low density attenuating material being movable from a first position misaligned with the aperture and a second position aligned with the aperture (low density of a housing rotating with respect to a low housing of the other hosing, paragraph 0031, lines 9-16).
Inanc et al. does not disclose an actuator, the actuator coupled to the source package, wherein the actuator applies a linear force to the source package to drive movement from the first position to the second position.
Ingle et al. discloses an actuator (424), the actuator coupled to the source package (428), wherein the actuator applies a linear force to the source package (424 moves 440 linearly sideway, Fig. 8; column 20, lines 10-19) to drive movement from the first position (456 is not aligned with opening 454) to the second position (456 is aligned with opening 454, Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Inanc et al. with an actuator associated with the source package as disclosed by Ingle et al. for the purpose of moving the source package linearly between a first position for not emitting radiation and a second position for emitting radiation.
Regarding claim 10, Inanc et al. does not disclose a biasing member arranged between the housing and the first shielding material, the biasing member driving the first shielding material in a direction opposite an output of the actuator.
Ingle et al. discloses a biasing member (452) arranged between the housing (414) and the first shielding material (410), the biasing member driving the first shielding material in a direction opposite an output of the actuator (column 20, lines 28-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Inanc et al. with a biasing member as disclosed by Ingle et al. for the purpose of not aligning openings 454 and 456 for preventing emission of radiation.
Regarding claim 11, Inanc et al. discloses:
a second shielding material (dense materials) configured to couple to the source package shielding material (dense materials of the shielding housings, paragraph 0031, line 12).
Regarding claim 12, Inanc et al. discloses the aperture is formed in a rotatable shield (each rotatable housing has an aperture, paragraph 0031, lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 14, Inanc et al. discloses the first shielding material is a high density material (paragraph 0031, line 12).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inanc et al. in view of Ingle et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flecker et al. (US 7059404).
Regarding claim 6, Inanc et al. as modified by Ingle et al. discloses the claim limitations as discussed above except the actuator is a linear actuator.
Flecker et al. discloses an actuator is a linear actuator (808, Fig. 8A) for moving a nuclear source (606, column 7, line 66 – column 8, line 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Inanc et al. as modified with a linear actuator as disclosed by Flecker et al. for the purpose of moving a nuclear source.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inanc et al. in view of Ingle et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peschmann (US 2011/0228896) and Birnbach et al. (US 2023/0128332).
Regarding claim 7, Inanc et al. discloses a shield (shielding housings, paragraph 0031, lines 16-17) associated with the logging tool (shielding housings are associated with gamma ray source associated with tool, Abstract, lines 1-3), the shield having a thickness (thickness of housing).
However, Inanc et al. as modified by Ingle et al. does not disclose a removable shield having a thickness based, at least in part, on a threshold exposure rate at a given distance.
Peschmann discloses a shield having a thickness (40 cm thick, paragraph 0013, lines 8-10) based, at least in part, on a threshold exposure rate at a given distance (paragraph 0013, lines 8-9) for reducing the exposure rate below the detection limits (paragraph 0013, lines 8-10), while
Birnbach et al. discloses a removable shield (paragraph 0061) for removing radioactive element (paragraph 0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Inanc et al. as modified with a removable shield having a thickness based, at least in part, on a threshold exposure rate at a given distance as disclosed by Peschmann and Birnbach et al. for the purposes of reducing the exposure rate below the detection limits and removing radioactive element.
Regarding claim 16, Inanc et al. discloses a shield configured to couple to the housing (housings are shielding housings, paragraph 0031).
However, Inanc et al. as modified by Ingle et al. does not disclose a removable shield having a variable shield thickness.
Peschmann discloses a shield having a variable shield thickness (about 40 cm thick, paragraph 0013, lines 8-9) for reducing the exposure rate below the detection limits (paragraph 0013, lines 8-10), while
Birnbach et al. discloses a removable shield (paragraph 0061) for removing radioactive element (paragraph 0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Inanc et al. as modified with a removable shield having a variable shield thickness as disclosed by Peschmann and Birnbach et al. for the purpose of reducing the exposure rate below the detection limits and removing radioactive element.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inanc et al. in view of Ingle et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Chu (RU 2017113115).
Regarding claim 13, Inanc et al. as modified by Ingle et al. discloses the claim limitations as discussed above except the actuator is a normally closed solenoid actuator.
Chu discloses it is known to provide an actuator that is a normally closed solenoid actuator (page 9, paragraph 4, lines 1-4) for generating motion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Inanc et al. as modified with a normally closed solenoid actuator as disclosed by Chu for the purpose of generating motion.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inanc et al. in view of Ingle et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Mlcak et al. (US 2023/0258073).
Regarding claim 15, Inanc et al. as modified by Ingle et al. discloses the claim limitations as discussed above except the low density attenuating material is at least one of PEEK, titanium, or aluminum.
Mlcak et al. discloses a low density attenuating material is at least one of titanium or aluminum (paragraph 0037, lines 18-24).
It is noted that a low density attenuating material is at least one of PEEK is not required because it is recited in the alternative form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Inanc et al. as modified with at least one of titanium or aluminum as disclosed by Mlcak et al. for the purpose of providing a low density attenuating material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons For Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The combination as claimed wherein a downhole logging system, comprising the removable shield further comprises at least one hinge for joining the at least two panels together, and at least one clamp for securing the at least two panels together at respective opposite ends from the at least one hinge (claim 8) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 3, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the drawing objections pertaining to 37 CFR 1.84 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections pertaining to 37 CFR 1.84 have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new drawing objection pertaining to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) is made, as discussed above.
With regard to the drawing objections under 37 CFR 1.83(a), Applicants argue that "[t]he applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented." 35 U.S.C. § 113 (emphasis added). Applicant respectfully submits one skilled in the art, having the benefit of the present disclosure, would recognize that a motor would be used to rotate a shield, as noted in at least paragraph 34 and as described in tools incorporated by reference in at least U.S. Patent Application No. 16/727,109 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,067,716) and U.S. Patent Application No. 16/590,796 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,066,926). See Specification, [0034].”
Examiner’s position is that the drawings are necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented, since the drawings supplement the descriptions in the disclosures mentioned above. In addition, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.83(a), the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) of claims 1 and 9, Applicants argue “[t]he Office Action has not identified which feature of the claim is allegedly indefinite. FIG. 3A illustrates the source 306 misaligned with the opening 330. FIG. 3B illustrates the source 306 aligned with the opening. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests entry of the amendments and withdrawal of the rejection.”
Examiner’s position is that claims 1 and 9 are misdescriptive relative to Figs. 3A and 3B as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) of claim 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicants argue “Ingle, at FIGS. 8 and 9, illustrates a source that is not driven to move, particularly not linearly. Instead, a member 428 (acting as a shield) is rotated by the actuator to move an opening 456 into alignment with another opening 454. See Ingle, FIGS. 8 and 9. In contrast, the actuator of claim 1 moves the source package "linearly" into position, while also changing a linear position of a shield. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1.”
Examiner’s position is that, in claim 1, the limitation of an actuator associated with the source package the actuator moving the source package linearly between a first position and a second position, the first position being misaligned with
the opening to block emission of gamma rays from the gamma ray source through the
opening and the second position being aligned with the opening to permit emission of
gamma rays from the gamma ray source through the opening would have been obvious in view of Ingle et al., since Ingle et al. discloses an actuator (424) associated
with the source package (440), the actuator moving the source package (440) linearly between a first position and a second position (424 moves 440 linearly sideway, Fig. 8), the first position being misaligned with the opening (first position where opening 456 is misaligned with opening 454, Fig. 8) to block emission of gamma rays (to block emission of radiation through opening 454, Fig. 8) from the gamma ray source (440) through the opening (454) and the second position being aligned with the opening
(position where opening 456 is aligned with opening 454, Fig. 8) to permit emission of
gamma rays (to permit emission of radiation through openings 456, 454, Fig. 8) from the gamma ray source through the opening (454). It is noted that claim 1 does not recite changing a linear position of a shield.
Applicants further argue “claim 9 is allowable at least for reasons including some of those discussed above in connection with claim 1. For example, claim 9 recites, in part, the features of "a housing, the housing having an aperture to permit emission of radioactive materials from the housing;" "a source package, comprising: a gamma ray source; and a source package shielding material;" a source receptacle, comprising: a first shielding material, the first shielding material being movable from a first position blocking the aperture and a second position misaligned with the aperture; and a low density attenuating material, positioned to at least partially surround the gamma ray source, the low density attenuating material being movable from the first position misaligned with the aperture and the second position aligned with the aperture;" and "an actuator, the actuator coupled to the source package, wherein the actuator applies a linear force to the source package to drive movement from the first position to the second position."”
Examiner’s position, as discussed above, is that claim 9 would have been obvious in view of Inanc et al. and Ingle et al.. Inanc et al. discloses
discloses a downhole logging tool (Abstract), comprising:
a housing (housing(s), paragraph 0031, lines 5-6), the housing having an aperture (aperture(s), paragraph 0031, line 13) to permit emission of radioactive materials from the housing (paragraph 0031, lines 9-11);
a source package (gamma ray source, housing(s), paragraph 0031, lines 5-6), comprising:
a gamma ray source (gamma ray source, paragraph 0031, lines 5-6);
a source package shielding material (shielding material in shielding
materials in shielding housing(s), paragraph 0031, line 5);
a source receptacle (receptacle(s) of gamma ray source formed by housing(s), paragraph 0031, lines 5-6), comprising:
a first shielding material, the first shielding material being movable from a
first position blocking the aperture and a second position misaligned with the aperture (first and second positions of one of the shielding housings are obtained by rotating one of the shielding housings, where the rotating shield can cover/uncover apertures, paragraph 0031, lines 5-13); and
a low density attenuating material, positioned to at least partially surround
the gamma ray source (less dense materials of shielding housing, paragraph 0031, lines 12-13, around the gamma ray source, paragraph 0031, lines 5-6), the low density attenuating material being movable from a first position misaligned with the aperture and a second position aligned with the aperture (low density of a housing rotating with respect to a low housing of the other hosing, paragraph 0031, lines 9-16), while
Ingle et al. discloses an actuator (424), the actuator coupled to the source package (428), wherein the actuator applies a linear force to the source package (424 moves 440 linearly sideway, Fig. 8; column 20, lines 10-19) to drive movement from the first position (456 is not aligned with opening 454) to the second position (456 is aligned with opening 454, Fig. 8).
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are traversed in view of the discussions above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 March 12, 2026