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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 March 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant' s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or as follows 35 U.S.C. 120: 23 March 2026 petition to request an unintentionally delayed priority claim is currently awaiting a decision.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 23 March 2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… number of counts logged by the formation-facing detectors [207,208] would be modified, either as a computational step prior to, or during the computation of formation density based on the reference detector's [211] output. This would be achieved by comparing the reference detector's [211] output variance to a software table for the specific ambient temperature in which the tool [101] is operating. The table would be created during the initial factory-based characterization testing of the tool [101], wherein the tool [101] would be placed against volumes of materials of known density, such as magnesium and aluminum, which contain a detector placed within the volume of the known density block, within the illumination volume of the source tube. The tool would be operated during these characterization tests and the count rate from within the region of interest [303] of the reference detector [211] and the calibration block detector would be recorded as the temperature of the tool is increased in discrete steps up to the highest anticipated well bore temperature. The variation between the absolute detector located in the calibration blocks and the reference detector [211] as a function of ambient temperature would then be tabulated …” in paragraph 21) serves as a glossary for the newly added claim term “wherein a difference between the reference spectrum and the calibration data characterizes variance in the output of the x-ray source as a function of ambient temperature”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
While the specification discloses number of counts logged by the formation-facing detectors [207,208] would be modified, either as a computational step prior to, or during the computation of formation density based on the reference detector's [211] output is achieved by comparing the reference detector's [211] output variance to a software table for the specific ambient temperature in which the tool [101] is operating (e.g., see “… In one example embodiment, the x-ray based litho-density formation evaluation tool [101] is deployed by wireline conveyance [102,103] into a borehole [104], wherein the formation [105] density is measured by the tool [101]. The tool [101] is enclosed by a pressure housing [201] which ensures that well fluids are maintained outside of the housing. In a further embodiment, a tool [101] is configured to measure formation density and borehole corrections using an x-ray tube [206] as a radiation [204] source. The x-ray source [206] produces a beam of x-rays [204] that illuminates the formation [202]. The x-ray source output is monitored by a reference detector [211]. No direct beam path through the shielding [201] that surrounds the source [206] and detectors [207, 208, 211] is necessary as the reference detector [211] uses the shielding [201] to attenuate the radiation emanating directly from the source [206]. The source tube [206] may be energized by a high-voltage generator [205] that contains a sensing and feedback circuit [209] that provides control input to the high-voltage generator controller [210]. The reference detector [211] provides a spectrum to the density processing unit [203] such that adjustments to the outputs of the formation density detector [208] and borehole correction detector [207] may be made to account for any variations in the output of the x-ray source [206]. In a further embodiment, the reference detector [211] is made of a scintillator crystal, such as Sodium Iodide, Cesium Iodide or Lanthanum Bromide, with an embedded micro-isotope, to be used in detector gain stabilization, and is located in the radiation shielding [201] surrounding a source tube [206] . The output spectrum [305] is analyzed and a region of interest [303] applied to the spectrum [305]. The total number of counts within the region of interest [303] form the basis of an input to a calibration coefficient correction computation. In a further embodiment, the borehole logging tool [101] would function such that the source tube [206] illuminates a volume of formation [202], wherein the formation-facing detectors [207,208], which are also gain stabilized by an embedded micro-isotope technique, would record the resultant spectra by collecting the scattered photons emanating from the formation. The number of counts logged by the formation-facing detectors [207,208] would be modified, either as a computational step prior to, or during the computation of formation density based on the reference detector's [211] output. This would be achieved by comparing the reference detector's [211] output variance to a software table for the specific ambient temperature in which the tool [101] is operating. The table would be created during the initial factory-based characterization testing of the tool [101], wherein the tool [101] would be placed against volumes of materials of known density, such as magnesium and aluminum, which contain a detector placed within the volume of the known density block, within the illumination volume of the source tube. The tool would be operated during these characterization tests and the count rate from within the region of interest [303] of the reference detector [211] and the calibration block detector would be recorded as the temperature of the tool is increased in discrete steps up to the highest anticipated well bore temperature. The variation between the absolute detector located in the calibration blocks and the reference detector [211] as a function of ambient temperature would then be tabulated and included in the firmware for that specific tool [ 101]. This table of calibration coefficients can then be used during density computation to correct the formation-facing detectors' [207,208], output for any variations in the source-tube's [206] output as a function of temperature based upon the known 'absolute' source output relative to the tabled reference output. In a further embodiment, the density processing is performed within the tool [101]. In a further embodiment, the raw count data from the region of interest [303] of the gain-stabilized formation-facing detectors [207,208] would be sent to topside in addition to the computed calibration coefficient corrected count rate for each detector, along with the count rate data from the reference detector. The correction computation would be performed within the logging control unit located on topsides … Furthermore, the inherent stability of the traditional embedded micro-isotope technique for formation-facing detector gain stabilization is not affected by this measurement. As a result, the raw output count data would be logged/recorded un-altered. The tabled coefficient amendments to the data would only be applied to the data prior to or during the final density calculation - if any apparent discrepancy or out-of-bound data were to be produced by the reference detector, it can be filtered by the operator as the raw 'unaltered' detector data would be available …” in Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 21 and 27 cited by applicant as support), there does not appear to be any disclosure of adjusting the measurement data using the reference spectrum and the calibration data comprises: measuring an ambient temperature proximate in which the tool operates; and comparing a variance in the reference spectrum to a subset of the calibration data corresponding to the ambient temperature. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of the newly added claim 18 limitation “wherein adjusting the measurement data using the reference spectrum and the calibration data comprises: measuring an ambient temperature proximate in which the tool operates; and comparing a variance in the reference spectrum to a subset of the calibration data corresponding to the ambient temperature” in the application as filed.
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 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-17 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teague et al. (US 2018/0180764).
In regard to claim 1, Teague et al. disclose an x-ray based litho-density tool for measurement of a formation surrounding a borehole, the tool comprising:
(a) an x-ray source to output x-ray radiation while the tool is positioned within the borehole (e.g., “… tool [101] is configured to measure formation density and borehole corrections … x-ray source [206] produces a beam of x-rays [204] that illuminates the formation [202]°…°formation-facing detectors [207,208], which are also gain stabilized by an embedded micro-isotope technique, would record the resultant spectra by collecting the scattered photons emanating from the formation …” in paragraph 21);
(b) a formation-facing detector to generate, using the x-ray radiation, measurement data that characterizes a property of the formation (e.g., “… tool [101] is configured to measure formation density and borehole corrections … x-ray source [206] produces a beam of x-rays [204] that illuminates the formation [202]°…°formation-facing detectors [207,208], which are also gain stabilized by an embedded micro-isotope technique, would record the resultant spectra by collecting the scattered photons emanating from the formation …” in paragraph 21);
(c) memory to store calibration data (e.g., “… table would be created during the initial factory-based characterization testing of the tool [101] … firmware for that specific tool [101] …” in paragraph 21); and
(d) reference detector to generate a reference spectrum (e.g., “… reference detector [211] provides a spectrum°…°output spectrum [305] is analyzed and a region of interest [303] applied to the spectrum [305]. The total number of counts within the region of interest [303] form the basis of an input to a calibration coefficient correction computation …” in paragraph 21),
wherein a difference between the reference spectrum and the calibration data characterizes variance in the output of the x-ray source as a function of ambient temperature, and wherein the tool is configured to adjust the measurement data using the reference spectrum and the calibration data to generate corrected measurement data (e.g., “… number of counts logged by the formationfacing detectors [207,208] would be modified, either as a computational step prior to, or during the computation of formation density based on the reference detector's [211] output … calibration coefficients can then be used during density computation to correct the formation-facing detectors' [207, 208], output for any variations in the source-tube's [206] output as a function of temperature based upon the known 'absolute' source output relative to the tabled reference output°…” in paragraph 21).
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1, Teague et al. also disclose that the reference detector is located in a void within radiation shielding material that surrounds the x-ray source, and the radiation shielding material positioned to substantially eliminate any direct beam path between the reference detector and the x-ray source (e.g., “… No direct beam path through the shielding [201] that surrounds the source [206] and detectors [207, 208, 211] …” in paragraph 19).
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 1, Teague et al. also disclose a detector used to measure borehole standoff such that other detector responses may be compensated for tool standoff (e.g., “… borehole correction detector [207] …” in paragraph 19).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 1, Teague et al. also disclose a tungsten shield that surrounds the x-ray source, the formation-facing detector, and the reference detector (e.g., “tungsten shield” in claim 5 and “… No direct beam path through the shielding [201] that surrounds the source [206] and detectors [207, 208, 211] …” in paragraph 19).
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1, Teague et al. also disclose that the tool is configured so as to permit through wiring (e.g., “… tool [101] is deployed by wireline conveyance [102,103]…” in paragraph 21).
In regard to claim 7 which is dependent on claim 1, Teague et al. also disclose that the tool further comprises a wear-pad disposed such that tool may be pressed against the side of the borehole to reduce borehole effects (e.g., “… Shielding, through-wiring, wear-pads and the like that improve the efficacy and functionality of the tool are also provided …” in paragraph 19).
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 1, Teague et al. also disclose that the reference detector is used to monitor the output of the x-ray source (e.g., “… x-ray source output is monitored by a reference detector [211]. …” in paragraph 21).
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 1, Teague et al. also disclose that the calibration data uniquely corresponds to the xray source and the reference detector of the tool (e.g., “… table would be created during the initial factory-based characterization testing of the tool [101] … firmware for that specific tool [101] …” in paragraph 21).
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 1, Teague et al. also disclose that the reference detector comprises a scintillator crystal with an embedded micro-isotope (e.g., “… reference detector [211] is made of a scintillator crystal, such as Sodium Iodide, Cesium Iodide or Lanthanum Bromide, with an embedded micro-isotope …” in paragraph 21).
In regard to claim 11 which is dependent on claim 1, Teague et al. also disclose that the memory is further to store unaltered output count data for the formation-facing detector (e.g., “… raw count data from the region of interest [303] of the gain-stabilized formation-facing detectors [207,208] would be sent to topside in addition to the computed calibration coefficient corrected count rate for each detector, along with the count rate data from the reference detector …” in paragraph 21).
In regard to claim 12, Teague et al. disclose a method of operating a borehole logging tool, the method comprising:
(a) causing a formation-facing detector of the tool to generate measurement data using x-ray radiation emitted by an x-ray source of the tool while positioned within a borehole, the measurement data characterizing a property of formation surrounding the borehole (e.g., “… tool [101] is configured to measure formation density and borehole corrections … x-ray source [206] produces a beam of x-rays [204] that illuminates the formation [202]°…°formation-facing detectors [207,208], which are also gain stabilized by an embedded micro-isotope technique, would record the resultant spectra by collecting the scattered photons emanating from the formation …” in paragraph 21);
(b) causing a reference detector of the tool to generate a reference spectrum using the x-ray radiation (e.g., “… reference detector [211] provides a spectrum°…°output spectrum [305] is analyzed and a region of interest [303] applied to the spectrum [305]. The total number of counts within the region of interest [303] form the basis of an input to a calibration coefficient correction computation …” in paragraph 21); and
(c) adjusting the measurement data using the reference spectrum and calibration data to generate corrected measurement data, wherein a difference between the reference spectrum and the calibration data characterizes variance in the output of the x-ray source as a function of temperature (e.g., “… number of counts logged by the formationfacing detectors [207,208] would be modified, either as a computational step prior to, or during the computation of formation density based on the reference detector's [211] output … calibration coefficients can then be used during density computation to correct the formation-facing detectors' [207, 208], output for any variations in the source-tube's [206] output as a function of temperature based upon the known 'absolute' source output relative to the tabled reference output°…” in paragraph 21).
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 12, Teague et al. also disclose that modifying the measurement data comprises determining a count rate of the reference spectrum within a programmed region of interest (e.g., “… reference detector [211] provides a spectrum°…°output spectrum [305] is analyzed and a region of interest [303] applied to the spectrum [305]. The total number of counts within the region of interest [303] form the basis of an input to a calibration coefficient correction computation …” in paragraph 21).
In regard to claim 14 which is dependent on claim 13, Teague et al. also disclose that the programmed region of interest is defined based on a material within a shielding of the tool (e.g., “… as a region of interest is employed while analyzing the output spectrum of reference detector, any undesirable effects associated with the modification of the form of the beam spectrum due to the radiation shielding can be circumvented as the region of interest can be tuned to select a spectral region above that of any major spectrum-clipping or hardening materials within the shielding …” in paragraph 30).
In regard to claim 15 which is dependent on claim 13, Teague et al. also disclose that adjusting the measurement data using the reference spectrum and the calibration data comprises providing a total number of counts within the programmed region of interest as input to a calibration coefficient correction algorithm (e.g., “… number of counts logged by the formationfacing detectors [207,208] would be modified, either as a computational step prior to, or during the computation of formation density based on the reference detector's [211] output … calibration coefficients can then be used during density computation to correct the formation-facing detectors' [207, 208], output for any variations in the source-tube's [206] output as a function of temperature based upon the known 'absolute' source output relative to the tabled reference output°…” in paragraph 21).
In regard to claim 16 which is dependent on claim 12, Teague et al. also disclose that factory-based characterization testing of the tool determines the calibration data (e.g., “… table would be created during the initial factory-based characterization testing of the tool [101] … firmware for that specific tool [101] …” in paragraph 21).
In regard to claim 17 which is dependent on claim 12, Teague et al. also disclose that further comprising storing unaltered output count data of the formation-facing detector in memory of the tool (e.g., “… raw count data from the region of interest [303] of the gain-stabilized formation-facing detectors [207,208] would be sent to topside in addition to the computed calibration coefficient corrected count rate for each detector, along with the count rate data from the reference detector …” in paragraph 21).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beekman et al. (US 9,823,385).
In regard to claim 1, Beekman et al. disclose an x-ray based litho-density tool for measurement of a formation surrounding a borehole, the tool comprising:
(a) an x-ray source to output x-ray radiation while the tool is positioned within the borehole (e.g., “… downhole tool 12 is described as a wireline downhole tool … downhole tool 12 may be any suitable measurement tool that uses an x-ray generator and a detector to obtain measurements of properties of the geological formation 14°…°x-ray generator 40 …” in the second and fourth column 5 paragraphs);
(b) a formation-facing detector to generate, using the x-ray radiation, measurement data that characterizes a property of the formation (e.g., “… two detectors 44 and 46 (e.g. a reference detector 44 and a measurement detector 46), any suitable number of detectors may be used …” in the fourth column 5 paragraph);
(c) memory to store calibration data (e.g., “… data processing system 28 may process the electrical signals from the photomultiplier 52 and 54 at the surface (e.g., as the data 26), at the downhole tool 12, or a combination thereof. As such, the downhole tool 12 may include hardware similar to the data processing system 28 (e.g., processor 30, memory 32, storage 34, etc.) … data processing circuitry 28 may determine a relationship between intensity of the source, intensity and energy distribution of the photons detected by the detector, and properties of the formation and borehole. For example, the relationship may be based on the equation:
I
d
e
t
e
c
t
o
r
=
I
s
o
u
r
c
e
*
F
A
F
,
C
k
(1) where Idetector is the count rate in the detector (or in an energy window of the detector spectrum), Isource is the intensity of the source, AF are properties of the geological formation, such as density and PEF of formation and mud cake, mud cake thickness, and Ck are the coefficients that depend on the endpoint energy of the photons … downhole tool 12 may be calibrated at multiple end point energies … the downhole tool 12 may operate at different endpoint energies during start up or due to changes in temperature … data processing system 28 may then adjust algorithm parameters based on stored calibration values and endpoint energy (block 122). For example, if the endpoint energy of the downhole tool 12 may fluctuate (e.g., due to temperature) between the first endpoint energy and the second endpoint energy, the data processing system 28 may apply the determined relationship from the calibration and the characterization process to the respective data associated with the respective endpoint energy …” in the first column 6 paragraph, the second column 8 paragraph, and the last two column 9 paragraphs); and
(d) reference detector to generate a reference spectrum (e.g., “… reference detector 44, to measure radiation from the x-ray source. While the reference detector 44 is shown as detecting the intensity and energy distribution of the photons emitted using a scintillation detector within the downhole tool 12 …” in the first column 7 paragraph),
wherein a difference between the reference spectrum and the calibration data characterizes variance in the output of the x-ray source as a function of ambient temperature, and wherein the tool is configured to adjust the measurement data using the reference spectrum and the calibration data to generate corrected measurement data (e.g., “… data processing circuitry 28 may determine a relationship between intensity of the source, intensity and energy distribution of the photons detected by the detector, and properties of the formation and borehole. For example, the relationship may be based on the equation:
I
d
e
t
e
c
t
o
r
=
I
s
o
u
r
c
e
*
F
A
F
,
C
k
(1) where Idetector is the count rate in the detector (or in an energy window of the detector spectrum), Isource is the intensity of the source, AF are properties of the geological formation, such as density and PEF of formation and mud cake, mud cake thickness, and Ck are the coefficients that depend on the endpoint energy of the photons … downhole tool 12 may be calibrated at multiple end point energies … the downhole tool 12 may operate at different endpoint energies during start up or due to changes in temperature … data processing system 28 may then adjust algorithm parameters based on stored calibration values and endpoint energy (block 122). For example, if the endpoint energy of the downhole tool 12 may fluctuate (e.g., due to temperature) between the first endpoint energy and the second endpoint energy, the data processing system 28 may apply the determined relationship from the calibration and the characterization process to the respective data associated with the respective endpoint energy …” in the second column 8 paragraph and the last two column 9 paragraphs).
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1, Beekman et al. also disclose that the reference detector is located in a void within radiation shielding material that surrounds the x-ray source, and the radiation shielding material positioned to substantially eliminate any direct beam path between the reference detector and the x-ray source (e.g., see “…°x-ray generator 40 … detector 44 … downhole tool 12 may use collimation channels 58, 60 and/or 68 to obtain the desired direction of photons …” in Fig. 2 and the fourth column 5 paragraph to the first column 6 paragraph).
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 1, Beekman et al. also disclose a detector used to measure borehole standoff such that other detector responses may be compensated for tool standoff (e.g., “… any suitable number of detectors may be used … data processing system 28 may perform spine-and-ribs techniques, forward model techniques, inversion techniques, neural networks, or other suitable approaches as well as combinations thereof, to determine the properties of the geological formation 14 and the mud cake 62 and/or standoff …” in the fourth column 5 paragraph and the last complete column 6 paragraph).
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1, Beekman et al. also disclose that the tool is configured so as to permit through wiring (e.g., “… downhole tool 12 is described as a wireline downhole tool …” in the second column 5 paragraph).
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 1, Beekman et al. also disclose that the reference detector is used to monitor the output of the x-ray source (e.g., “… reference detector 44, to measure radiation from the x-ray source. While the reference detector 44 is shown as detecting the intensity and energy distribution of the photons emitted using a scintillation detector within the downhole tool 12 …” in the first column 7 paragraph).
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 1, Beekman et al. also disclose that the calibration data uniquely corresponds to the xray source and the reference detector of the tool (e.g., “… calibration procedure may be performed to assess the changes in each tool and to correct the response to match the master tool …” in the last complete column 9 paragraph).
In regard to claim 11 which is dependent on claim 1, Beekman et al. also disclose that the memory is further to store unaltered output count data for the formation-facing detector (e.g., “… data processing system 28 may process the electrical signals from the photomultiplier 52 and 54 at the surface (e.g., as the data 26), at the downhole tool 12, or a combination thereof. As such, the downhole tool 12 may include hardware similar to the data processing system 28 (e.g., processor 30, memory 32, storage 34, etc.) … data processing circuitry 28 may determine a relationship between intensity of the source, intensity and energy distribution of the photons detected by the detector, and properties of the formation and borehole. For example, the relationship may be based on the equation:
I
d
e
t
e
c
t
o
r
=
I
s
o
u
r
c
e
*
F
A
F
,
C
k
(1) where Idetector is the count rate in the detector (or in an energy window of the detector spectrum), Isource is the intensity of the source, AF are properties of the geological formation, such as density and PEF of formation and mud cake, mud cake thickness, and Ck are the coefficients that depend on the endpoint energy of the photons … downhole tool 12 may be calibrated at multiple end point energies … the downhole tool 12 may operate at different endpoint energies during start up or due to changes in temperature … data processing system 28 may then adjust algorithm parameters based on stored calibration values and endpoint energy (block 122). For example, if the endpoint energy of the downhole tool 12 may fluctuate (e.g., due to temperature) between the first endpoint energy and the second endpoint energy, the data processing system 28 may apply the determined relationship from the calibration and the characterization process to the respective data associated with the respective endpoint energy …” in the first column 6 paragraph, the second column 8 paragraph, and the last two column 9 paragraphs).
In regard to claim 12, Beekman et al. disclose a method of operating a borehole logging tool, the method comprising:
(a) causing a formation-facing detector of the tool to generate measurement data using x-ray radiation emitted by an x-ray source of the tool while positioned within a borehole, the measurement data characterizing a property of formation surrounding the borehole (e.g., “… downhole tool 12 is described as a wireline downhole tool … downhole tool 12 may be any suitable measurement tool that uses an x-ray generator and a detector to obtain measurements of properties of the geological formation 14°…°x-ray generator 40 … two detectors 44 and 46 (e.g. a reference detector 44 and a measurement detector 46), any suitable number of detectors may be used …” in the second and fourth column 5 paragraphs);
(b) causing a reference detector of the tool to generate a reference spectrum using the x-ray radiation (e.g., “… reference detector 44, to measure radiation from the x-ray source. While the reference detector 44 is shown as detecting the intensity and energy distribution of the photons emitted using a scintillation detector within the downhole tool 12 …” in the first column 7 paragraph); and
(c) adjusting the measurement data using the reference spectrum and calibration data to generate corrected measurement data, wherein a difference between the reference spectrum and the calibration data characterizes variance in the output of the x-ray source as a function of temperature (e.g., “… data processing circuitry 28 may determine a relationship between intensity of the source, intensity and energy distribution of the photons detected by the detector, and properties of the formation and borehole. For example, the relationship may be based on the equation:
I
d
e
t
e
c
t
o
r
=
I
s
o
u
r
c
e
*
F
A
F
,
C
k
(1) where Idetector is the count rate in the detector (or in an energy window of the detector spectrum), Isource is the intensity of the source, AF are properties of the geological formation, such as density and PEF of formation and mud cake, mud cake thickness, and Ck are the coefficients that depend on the endpoint energy of the photons … downhole tool 12 may be calibrated at multiple end point energies … the downhole tool 12 may operate at different endpoint energies during start up or due to changes in temperature … data processing system 28 may then adjust algorithm parameters based on stored calibration values and endpoint energy (block 122). For example, if the endpoint energy of the downhole tool 12 may fluctuate (e.g., due to temperature) between the first endpoint energy and the second endpoint energy, the data processing system 28 may apply the determined relationship from the calibration and the characterization process to the respective data associated with the respective endpoint energy …” in the second column 8 paragraph and the last two column 9 paragraphs).
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 12, Beekman et al. also disclose that modifying the measurement data comprises determining a count rate of the reference spectrum within a programmed region of interest (e.g., “… in an energy window of the detector spectrum …” in the second column 8 paragraph).
In regard to claim 15 which is dependent on claim 13, Beekman et al. also disclose that adjusting the measurement data using the reference spectrum and the calibration data comprises providing a total number of counts within the programmed region of interest as input to a calibration coefficient correction algorithm (e.g., “… data processing circuitry 28 may determine a relationship between intensity of the source, intensity and energy distribution of the photons detected by the detector, and properties of the formation and borehole. For example, the relationship may be based on the equation:
I
d
e
t
e
c
t
o
r
=
I
s
o
u
r
c
e
*
F
A
F
,
C
k
(1) where Idetector is the count rate in the detector (or in an energy window of the detector spectrum), Isource is the intensity of the source, AF are properties of the geological formation, such as density and PEF of formation and mud cake, mud cake thickness, and Ck are the coefficients that depend on the endpoint energy of the photons … downhole tool 12 may be calibrated at multiple end point energies … the downhole tool 12 may operate at different endpoint energies during start up or due to changes in temperature … data processing system 28 may then adjust algorithm parameters based on stored calibration values and endpoint energy (block 122). For example, if the endpoint energy of the downhole tool 12 may fluctuate (e.g., due to temperature) between the first endpoint energy and the second endpoint energy, the data processing system 28 may apply the determined relationship from the calibration and the characterization process to the respective data associated with the respective endpoint energy …” in the second column 8 paragraph and the last two column 9 paragraphs).
In regard to claim 16 which is dependent on claim 12, Beekman et al. also disclose that factory-based characterization testing of the tool determines the calibration data (e.g., “… Other downhole tools 12 may be constructed after the characterization of the first one … calibration procedure may be performed to assess the changes in each tool and to correct the response to match the master tool …” in the last complete column 9 paragraph).
In regard to claim 17 which is dependent on claim 12, Beekman et al. also disclose storing unaltered output count data of the formation-facing detector in memory of the tool (e.g., “… data processing system 28 may process the electrical signals from the photomultiplier 52 and 54 at the surface (e.g., as the data 26), at the downhole tool 12, or a combination thereof. As such, the downhole tool 12 may include hardware similar to the data processing system 28 (e.g., processor 30, memory 32, storage 34, etc.) … data processing circuitry 28 may determine a relationship between intensity of the source, intensity and energy distribution of the photons detected by the detector, and properties of the formation and borehole. For example, the relationship may be based on the equation:
I
d
e
t
e
c
t
o
r
=
I
s
o
u
r
c
e
*
F
A
F
,
C
k
(1) where Idetector is the count rate in the detector (or in an energy window of the detector spectrum), Isource is the intensity of the source, AF are properties of the geological formation, such as density and PEF of formation and mud cake, mud cake thickness, and Ck are the coefficients that depend on the endpoint energy of the photons … downhole tool 12 may be calibrated at multiple end point energies … the downhole tool 12 may operate at different endpoint energies during start up or due to changes in temperature … data processing system 28 may then adjust algorithm parameters based on stored calibration values and endpoint energy (block 122). For example, if the endpoint energy of the downhole tool 12 may fluctuate (e.g., due to temperature) between the first endpoint energy and the second endpoint energy, the data processing system 28 may apply the determined relationship from the calibration and the characterization process to the respective data associated with the respective endpoint energy …” in the first column 6 paragraph, the second column 8 paragraph, and the last two column 9 paragraphs).
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beekman et al. (US 9,823,385) in view of Simon et al. (US 2012/0138782).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 1, Beekman et al. also disclose a tungsten shield that surrounds the x-ray source, the formation-facing detector, and the reference detector (e.g., see “…°x-ray generator 40 … detector 44 … downhole tool 12 may use collimation channels 58, 60 and/or 68 to obtain the desired direction of photons …” in Fig. 2 and the fourth column 5 paragraph to the first column 6 paragraph). The tool of Beekman et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… collimation channels …” such as tungsten. However, “… collimation channels …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… X-ray shielding 3 2, which may be formed from, for example, high-density tungsten (W). The shielding 32 may serve several purposes … source collimator channel 30 formed in the shielding 32 may provide a highly directional beam of X-rays from the target 28 to the materials that surround the LWD tool 12 while suppressing radiation in other directions …” in US 2012/0138782 paragraphs 39 and 40 of Simon et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional shield (e.g., comprising details such as “high-density tungsten (W)”, in order to achieve “source collimator channel 30 formed in the shielding 32 may provide a highly directional beam of X-rays from the target 28 to the materials that surround the LWD tool 12 while suppressing radiation in other directions”) for the unspecified shield of Beekman et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional shield (e.g., comprising details such as a tungsten shield) as the unspecified shield of Beekman et al.
In regard to claim 7 which is dependent on claim 1, the tool of Beekman et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… downhole tool 12 may be any suitable measurement tool that uses an x-ray generator and a detector to obtain measurements of properties of the geological formation 14 …” such as a wear-pad disposed such that tool may be pressed against the side of the borehole to reduce borehole effects. However, “… tool …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… integrated or attached stabilizer 18 to stabilize the LWD tool 12 when used downhole … collar windows 34 and stabilizer windows 36 …” in US 2012/0138782 paragraphs 37 and 42 of Simon et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional tool (e.g., comprising details such as “collar windows 34 and stabilizer windows 36”, in order to “stabilize”) for the unspecified tool of Beekman et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional tool (e.g., comprising details such as a wear-pad disposed such that tool may be pressed against the side of the borehole to reduce borehole effects) as the unspecified tool of Beekman et al.
Claim(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beekman et al. (US 9,823,385) in view of Simon et al. (US 7,960,687).
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 1, Beekman et al. also disclose that the reference detector comprises a scintillator (e.g., “… detectors 44 and 46 may each include a scintillator 48 and 50 …” in the last column 5 paragraph). The tool of Beekman et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… scintillator …” such as a scintillator crystal with an embedded micro-isotope. However, “… scintillator …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… scintillator 82 may produce its own background radiation, which may supplement the above-described gain-stabilization techniques. In particular, certain scintillators 82 are available for use that contains traces of radioactive elements …” in the last column 10 paragraph of US 7,960,687). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional scintillator (e.g., comprising details such as “scintillator 82 may produce its own background radiation, which may supplement the above-described gain-stabilization techniques”) for the unspecified scintillator of Beekman et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional scintillator (e.g., comprising details such as a scintillator crystal with an embedded micro-isotope) as the unspecified scintillator of Beekman et al.
In regard to claim 14 which is dependent on claim 13, the method of Beekman et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… collimation channels …” such as the programmed region of interest is defined based on a material within a shielding of the tool. However, “… collimation channels …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… reference X-ray detector 22 may detect two distinct peaks (e.g., 80 keV from X-ray fluorescence at numeral 98 and 75% of the maximum beam energy of the 60 X-ray generator 18 from X-ray path 100) … enable the data processing circuitry 14 to stabilize both the reference X-ray detector 22 … first energy peak 126, occurring around 80 keV, represents X-rays caused by X-ray fluorescence in the X-ray shielding 80 at reference numeral 98 …” in the last complete column 7 paragraph and the third column 8 paragraph of US 7,960,687). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional shield (e.g., comprising details such as “X-rays caused by X-ray fluorescence in the X-ray shielding 80”, in order to “enable the data processing circuitry 14 to stabilize both the reference X-ray detector 22”) for the unspecified shield of Beekman et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional shield (e.g., comprising details such as the programmed region of interest is defined based on a material within a shielding of the tool) as the unspecified shield of Beekman et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended and new claims have been fully considered but some are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's remaining arguments filed 23 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejections will be obviate by a favorable decision on a petition to request an unintentionally delayed priority claim to Teague et al. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the 23 March 2026 petition to request an unintentionally delayed priority claim is currently awaiting a decision.
Applicant argues that Beekman et al. lack a disclosure of one or more features presently recited by independent claim 1 such as a difference between the reference spectrum and the calibration data characterizes variance in the output of the x-ray source as a function of ambient temperature. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Beekman et al. teach that endpoint energy is a function of temperature (e.g., see “… the downhole tool 12 may operate at different endpoint energies during start up or due to changes in temperature …” in the second column 8 paragraph and the last two column 9 paragraphs) and wherein a downhole tool is calibrated at multiple end point energies (e.g., see “… downhole tool 12 may be calibrated at multiple end point energies … the downhole tool 12 may operate at different endpoint energies during start up or due to changes in temperature …” in the second column 8 paragraph and the last two column 9 paragraphs). Therefore, the cited prior art teaches all limitations as arranged in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2008/0159480 teaches well logging.
US 2013/0308753 teaches well logging.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights