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 . 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.
EXAMINER COMMENT
This office action supersedes the previously issued action to incorporate the response to the arguments that was inadvertently omitted from the earlier version. Accordingly, the period for reply is reset and shall run from the mailing date of this revised Final action.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response and amendments, filed 6/18/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-4, and 6-27 are pending upon entry of this Amendment, the amendments necessitated new ground of rejection over Yoshida, US6101611A. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. The argument is the context in which this invention appears, reverse cementing of a wellbore, not captured by the cited art. It seems Applicant is arguing difference between prior art and the claimed invention, "configured for placement in a downhole tubular", while Hay discloses a sensor that uses a permanent magnet to detect proximity to a wellbore or other component, the sensor requires external power and communication and is not capable of autonomous operation. Similarly, while Dyck does disclose a current source and a controller, Dyck's controller is limited to adjusting the operations based on the sensor readings, not power supply.
Response:
Based on MPEP 2111, during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Also:
During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2111.02.
In this case, Applicant is not referring to any claimed limitation that is not taught by the prior art , except for “configured for placement in a downhole tubular", and this is preamble of the claim. More specifically : Hay supplies almost the entire physical architecture: sensor housing, shield/connector cap, permanent magnet, ferrite core, and a coil wound on a bobbin around that core, all packaged to survive downhole fluid exposure. That's a good structural match. Dyck supplies the one limitation Hay doesn't cleanly teach: a coil that is deliberately driven to generate a field opposing and temporarily overcoming the permanent magnet's field, specifically to shed accumulated ferromagnetic particles. Dyck's disclosure of the capacitor discharge "aperiodic decay" passing through a zero-crossing where the two fields cancel is about as close a match to "temporarily neutralize the first magnetic field".
Therefore :
"Prior art is compared to the claim, not the disclosure". All the applicant's points about casing vs. drill string, reverse cementing timing, autonomous operation, and the power supply/acquisition system are not recited in the claim.
Preamble/intended-use argument — "configured for placement in a downhole tubular" reciting only intended use, with no structural language elsewhere in the claim tying to pressure/temperature/casing-specific requirements, is exactly the fact pattern where MPEP 2111.02 and cases like In re Schreiber or Catalina Marketing say the preamble doesn't limit.
Therefore the arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1, 15-20, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay, US 20160194951 A1 in view of “DYCK”, EP 2455774 and Yoshida, US6101611A.
Claim 1
Hay in e.g., figs.1-6 teaches:
An apparatus (120) configured for placement in a downhole tubular (110,108) and reduction (function met by detector 400) of magnetic debris accumulation (e.g., fig.5B, ¶0027,0033), the apparatus 120,101 comprising:
a sensor housing 402;
a shield 406,404; and
a permanent electromagnet (408,coil 410, core 412) including a permanent magnet 408 configured to emit a first magnetic field (e.g.,¶0066),
a bobbin (e.g.,¶0072 ) coupled with the permanent magnet (408),
a ferrite (e.g., ¶0068) rod 412 disposed along a longitudinal axis within the bobbin (e.g.,¶0072 Coil 410 may be located around core 412. Coil 410 may be mounted on a bobbin (not expressly shown), and
a coil 410 wound around the bobbin and configured to receive voltage (e.g., via 420, figs. 5C,D,¶0027,0073) and emit a second magnetic field (function met by the AC electric current), wherein the sensor housing 402 and shield 406,404 are configured to protect the permanent electromagnet from downhole fluids (function met by housing and shield see e.g., ¶0072,0080).
Hay does not teach to temporarily neutralize the first magnetic field of the permanent magnet,
a power supply electrically coupled to the coil and configured to supply the voltage to the coil; and an acquisition and measurement system coupled with the power supply and configured to control the voltage supplied by the power supply to the coil, wherein the acquisition and measurement system is configured to modify operation of the permanent electromagnet in response to an amount of power remaining in the power supply.
In the similar field of endeavor, DYCK in figs.1-3 discloses: An apparatus configured for placement in a tubular 16 and reduction of magnetic debris accumulation on a sensor (e.g., ¶0004), the apparatus comprising: a permanent electromagnet (e.g., ¶0011) including a permanent magnet 24 configured to emit a first magnetic field (e.g., ¶0006), a (magnetic flux guide 20) coupled with the permanent magnet 24, a ferrite rod (¶0010 e.g., iron) disposed along a longitudinal axis (fig.1¶0009), and a coil 30 wound around the guide 20 and configured to receive voltage (e.g., ¶0015 from 32 via capacitance) and emit a second magnetic field (e.g., ¶0006¶0007) to temporarily neutralize the first magnetic field of the permanent magnet (e.g., ¶0007¶0013), in other words, DYCK also teaches a power supply (32 to capacitor 38 to coil e.g., ¶0015) electrically coupled to the coil (30 via switch 44, controller 46) and configured to supply the voltage (e.g., ¶0006-¶0007) to the coil 30; and an acquisition and measurement system 46 coupled with the power supply (via switching 44) and configured to control the voltage supplied by the power supply to the coil (30 via 46: voltage is switched on or off), wherein the acquisition and measurement system 46 is configured to modify operation of the permanent electromagnet (controller 46 switch on and off via 40,42 the current to coil 30 based on the threshold). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use DYCK‘s voltage apparatus for Hay‘s apparatus and emit a second magnetic field to temporarily neutralize the first magnetic field of the permanent magnet as taught by DYCKS, and a power supply electrically coupled to the coil and configured to supply the voltage to the coil; and an acquisition and measurement system coupled with the power supply and configured to control the voltage supplied by the power supply to the coil, wherein the acquisition and measurement system is configured to modify operation of the permanent electromagnet. One of ordinary skill in the art knows excessive particle contamination of the fluid can impair the functionality of the system or even lead to a total failure would have been motivated to make this modification in order to be able to cleaning sensor without need to either replace or removing sensor manually, (¶0003,0004 DYCKS)1. The modified Hay with DYCK does not teach : in response to an amount of power remaining in the power supply. In the similar field of endeavor, Yoshida teaches a portable terminal control system in which a control means (3) individually controls the supply of power to peripheral circuits, comprising a voltage detection means (2) for detecting the voltage of a battery (1), a remaining capacity calculating means (4) for calculating remaining battery capacity from the detected voltage, and a judging means (5) that determines whether sufficient remaining capacity exists to satisfy a drive request , wherein, if the judgment is affirmative, the control means causes the battery to supply power to the requested circuit, and if negative, execution is denied. Yoshida further teaches that this scheme is employed "to extend the limited life of a battery as much as possible" (col.2 l.29-30) and "to prevent faulty operation... caused by a drop in voltage" resulting from insufficient remaining capacity when a power-consuming operation is initiated (e.g., col.4 l.1-5).Both Modified Hay with Dyck and Yoshida are directed to systems in which a control unit selectively triggers a power-consuming operation (discharge of a capacitor via an induction coil in Dyck; supply of power to a peripheral circuit in Yoshida) based on a signal from a monitoring/detection element. Yoshida's teaching — that a control system should verify sufficient remaining power-supply capacity before executing a triggered operation, in order to prevent incomplete or faulty execution and to conserve/extend the usable life of the power source — is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by Dyck's system. Specifically, Dyck's capacitor (38) must hold sufficient charge to induce a magnetic field that overcompensates the permanent magnet (24); an under-charged capacitor (e.g., due to self-discharge, as Dyck itself acknowledges) would fail to achieve the required overcompensation, resulting in incomplete cleaning of the sensor surface — a failure mode functionally analogous to the "faulty operation" and "insufficient remaining capacity" problems Yoshida addresses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Yoshida‘s controller for the modified Hay with DYCK‘s controller and power supply electrically coupled to the modified Hay’s coil and configured to supply the voltage to the coil; and an acquisition and measurement system coupled with the modified Hay’s power supply and configured to control the voltage supplied by the power supply to the coil, wherein the modified Hay’s acquisition and measurement system is configured to modify operation of the permanent electromagnet in response to an amount of power remaining in the power supply . One of ordinary skill in the art knows technique of detecting/calculating remaining power-supply capacity and gating the triggered operation (i.e., modifying operation of the switch/coil system) would have been motivated to make this modification in order to modify operation of the switch/coil system, in response thereto, as taught by Yoshida, in order to prevent unreliable or incomplete operation of the cleaning cycle and to conserve the power source, as suggested by Yoshida (col.2 l.29-30, col.4 l.1-5). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143(D), courts have ruled that Simple applying a known technique (Yoshida’s capacity-based gating of a triggered power-consuming operation) to a known product (Hay modified with Dyck's threshold-triggered discharge control) to yield predictable results (preventing failed or incomplete discharge cycles due to insufficient stored charge), is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 15
Hay in e.g., figs.1-6 teaches:
A method for reducing (function met by detector 400,600) magnetic debris accumulation (e.g., fig.5B, ¶0027,0032,0033) on a downhole sensor 400,600 within a tubular 108,110 conveyed in a borehole 114, comprising:
supplying a voltage (e.g., via 420, figs. 5C,D,¶0027,0073) and a first magnetic field (e.g., ¶0073) of a permanent electromagnet (408,410,412) proximate to the downhole sensor 400,600, the permanent electromagnet (408,410,412) including a permanent magnet 408 configured to emit the first magnetic field (from magnet 408), a bobbin (e.g., ¶0072) coupled with the permanent magnet 408, a ferrite (e.g., ¶0068) rod 412 disposed along a longitudinal axis within the bobbin (¶0072), and a coil 410 wound around the bobbin (¶0072) and configured to receive the voltage and emit a second magnetic field (e.g., ¶0073) ,
wherein the permanent electromagnet (408,410,412) is located within a sensor housing 402 and a shield 404,406 configured to protect the permanent electromagnet from downhole fluids (function met by housing and shield see e.g., ¶0072,0080).
Hay does not specifically teach to temporarily neutralize a first magnetic field, and
removing magnetic debris proximate to the downhole sensor via a flow of a first fluid in the tubular while the first magnetic field is neutralized, a power supply coupled to the coil and configured to supply the voltage to the coil; wherein the instructions to control supply of the voltage from the power supply comprise instructions to modify operation of the permanent electromagnet in response to an amount of power remaining in the power supply.
DYCK in figs.3-4 teaches:
A method for reducing magnetic debris accumulation on a sensor (34/22) within a tubular 16 conveyed, comprising:
supplying a voltage (32) to temporarily neutralize a first magnetic field (¶0006¶0007) of a permanent electromagnet 24 proximate to the sensor (34/22), the permanent electromagnet (20/30/24) including a permanent magnet 20 configured to emit the first magnetic field (¶0006), a guide 20 coupled with the permanent magnet 24, a ferrite rod (iron ¶0010) disposed along a longitudinal axis (¶0011) within the guide 20, and a coil 30 wound around the and configured to receive the voltage (from 32) and emit a second magnetic field (¶0006¶0007) to temporarily neutralize the first magnetic field (¶0006¶0007); and removing magnetic debris on the sensor (22/34) via a flow of a first fluid in the tubular while the first magnetic field is neutralized (¶0007).
DYCK also teaches a power supply (32,34) coupled to the coil (30 via 40,42,46) and configured to supply the voltage(on and off voltage power) to the coil 30; wherein the instructions to control supply of the voltage from the power supply comprise instructions to modify operation of the permanent electromagnet (controller 46 switch on and off via 40,42 the current to coil 30 based on the threshold). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use DYCK‘s voltage apparatus for Hay‘s apparatus and emit a second magnetic field to temporarily neutralize the first magnetic field of the permanent magnet as taught by DYCKS, and
removing magnetic debris proximate to the downhole sensor via a flow of a first fluid in the tubular while the first magnetic field is neutralized, a power supply coupled to the coil and configured to supply the voltage to the coil; wherein the instructions to control supply of the voltage from the power supply comprise instructions to modify operation of the permanent electromagnet. One of ordinary skill in the art knows excessive particle contamination of the fluid can impair the functionality of the system or even lead to a total failure would have been motivated to make this modification in order to be able to cleaning sensor without need to either replace or removing sensor manually, (¶0003,0004 DYCKS)2. The modified Hay does not teach in response to an amount of power remaining in the power supply. Yoshida teaches a portable terminal control system in which a control means (3) individually controls the supply of power to peripheral circuits, comprising a voltage detection means (2) for detecting the voltage of a battery (1), a remaining capacity calculating means (4) for calculating remaining battery capacity from the detected voltage, and a judging means (5) that determines whether sufficient remaining capacity exists to satisfy a drive request , wherein, if the judgment is affirmative, the control means causes the battery to supply power to the requested circuit, and if negative, execution is denied. Yoshida further teaches that this scheme is employed "to extend the limited life of a battery as much as possible" (col.2 l.29-30) and "to prevent faulty operation... caused by a drop in voltage" resulting from insufficient remaining capacity when a power-consuming operation is initiated (e.g., col.4 l.1-5).Both Modified Hay with Dyck and Yoshida are directed to systems in which a control unit selectively triggers a power-consuming operation (discharge of a capacitor via an induction coil in Dyck; supply of power to a peripheral circuit in Yoshida) based on a signal from a monitoring/detection element. Yoshida's teaching — that a control system should verify sufficient remaining power-supply capacity before executing a triggered operation, in order to prevent incomplete or faulty execution and to conserve/extend the usable life of the power source — is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by Dyck's system. Specifically, Dyck's capacitor (38) must hold sufficient charge to induce a magnetic field that overcompensates the permanent magnet (24); an under-charged capacitor (e.g., due to self-discharge, as Dyck itself acknowledges) would fail to achieve the required overcompensation, resulting in incomplete cleaning of the sensor surface — a failure mode functionally analogous to the "faulty operation" and "insufficient remaining capacity" problems Yoshida addresses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Yoshida‘s controller for the modified Hay with DYCK‘s controller and power supply electrically coupled to the modified Hay’s coil and configured to supply the voltage to the coil; and an acquisition and measurement system coupled with the modified Hay’s power supply and configured to control the voltage supplied by the power supply to the coil, wherein the modified Hay’s acquisition and measurement system is configured to modify operation of the permanent electromagnet in response to an amount of power remaining in the power supply . One of ordinary skill in the art knows technique of detecting/calculating remaining power-supply capacity and gating the triggered operation (i.e., modifying operation of the switch/coil system) would have been motivated to make this modification in order to modify operation of the switch/coil system, in response thereto, as taught by Yoshida, in order to prevent unreliable or incomplete operation of the cleaning cycle and to conserve the power source, as suggested by Yoshida (col.2 l.29-30, col.4 l.1-5). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143(D), courts have ruled that Simple applying a known technique (Yoshida’s capacity-based gating of a triggered power-consuming operation) to a known product (Hay modified with Dyck's threshold-triggered discharge control) to yield predictable results (preventing failed or incomplete discharge cycles due to insufficient stored charge), is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 16
Hay in view of DYCK and Yoshida teaches the method of claim 15, DYCK teaches further comprising:
Ceasing by the acquisition and management system 46 the supply of the voltage to the permanent electromagnet after a waiting time has passed; and analyzing, by the acquisition and management system 46 a sensor output of the sensor, wherein the sensor output indicates an extent of the magnetic debris accumulation (e.g., ¶0018: specified threshold value corresponds to a certain amount of particles deposited on the sensor, this amount of particles can be less than or equal to the maximum capacity of the sensor surface (saturation)) for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 17
Hay in view of DYCK and Yoshida teaches the method of claim 16, DYCK teaches wherein the waiting time indicates a duration of the voltage supply to the permanent electromagnet, and wherein the waiting time is adjusted, by the acquisition and management system 46 based, at least in part, on the extent of magnetic debris removal (e.g., ¶0018¶0019) for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 18
Hay in view of DYCK and Yoshida teaches the method of claim 16, DYCK teaches wherein the downhole sensor is a Hall effect sensor (e.g., ¶0017) configured for use in a reverse cementing operation, and wherein the supplying and ceasing of the voltage to the permanent electromagnet occurs a plurality of times during the operation for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 19
Hay in view of DYCK and Yoshida teaches the method of claim 15, Hay teaches wherein the first fluid comprises a slurry (e.g., ¶0027,0032), and wherein the slurry comprises magnetic particle detectable (e.g., fig.5B) by the downhole sensor 400,600.
Claim 20
Hay in view of DYCK and Yoshida teaches the method of claim 19, DYCK teaches wherein the power supply comprises a battery 32 and wherein a timing sequence dictating a length of time for supplying the voltage to the permanent electromagnet 24 is adjusted, by the acquisition and management system 46 based on one or more conditions in a wellbore (¶0020 amount of particles load of fluid on sensor that is in the place of fluid or wellbore) for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 24
Hay in view of DYCK and Yoshida teaches the apparatus of claim 1, Hay teaches wherein the permanent electromagnet (408,410,420) is configured to induce an electrical field into an interior (e.g., figs. 5A,B) of the downhole tubular 108,110.
Claim 26
Hay in view of DYCK and Yoshida teaches the method of claim 15, Hay teaches further comprising: injecting a spacer fluid having particles with a high magnetic permeability ((e.g., ¶0032)) into the tubular 108, wherein the magnetic debris comprises a subset of the particles with high magnetic permeability (e.g., ¶0032,0033,0049); modification with DYCK in e.g., ¶0036,0038 teaches determining3, by the acquisition and management system 46 based on a first sensor output (e.g., signals from sensor ¶0017) of the downhole sensor 34, that the magnetic debris has accumulated proximate to the downhole sensor 34, wherein said supplying a voltage to temporarily neutralize the first magnetic field of the permanent electromagnet is responsive to (e.g., ¶0036 signal is displayed from clean to the point of threshold value) said determining that the magnetic debris has accumulated proximate to the downhole sensor 34; determining, based on a second sensor output (¶0036 signal is displayed from beginning to the point of threshold, therefore the point removal of debris is signal displayed at the clean situation) of the downhole sensor 34, that the magnetic debris has been removed; DYCK does not explicitly teach “and in response to determining that the magnetic debris has been removed, stopping supply of the voltage” however, first: DYCK teaches control strategy to neutralize the first magnetic field is performed based on signal from sensor (e.g., ¶0036), secondly: DYCK teaches choice of this strategy to neutralize the magnetic field and removing the accumulated debris is only because of simplicity (¶0007), therefore the limitation “in response to determining that the magnetic debris has been removed, stopping supply of the voltage” absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” control strategy disclosed by DYCK that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired accuracy from sensor, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the in response to determining that the magnetic debris has been removed, stopping supply of the voltage, as already suggested by DYCK. Since these control strategies are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these strategy in the device of DYCK. Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143 (D), courts have ruled that applying a known technique to a known product to yield predictable results is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 2-4 , 9-11, 23, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay, US 20160194951 A1 in view of “DYCK”, EP 2455774 , and Yoshida and Connell, US 20040020635 A1.
Claim 2
Hay in view of DYCK and Yoshida teaches claim 1, DYCK further teaches further comprising:
a circuit (e.g., fig.2) coupled with the coil 30, the circuit including a modified downhole sensor (34/with surface 22), the modified downhole sensor configured to detect (¶0017) magnetized particles 12 suspended in fluids 14 (e.g.,¶0003 teaches the apparatus for any fluid contaminated with ferromagnetic particles and this includes magnetic fluids of a reverse cementing process based on MPEP 2114 an apparatus claim cover what a device is, not what a device does, see also MPEP 2173.05(g)) for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
The modified Hay does not teach a PCB.
In the similar field of endeavor, Connell in figs.3-4 teaches PCB (108) used in apparatus with particles in fluids of a reverse cementing process (e.g.,¶0003), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in a of the claimed invention to use Connell’s PCB for the modified Hay’s circuit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to their high reliability which can withstand high temperature, high humidity and other environmental changes, and can stably support the operation of electronic components.
Claim 3
Hay in view of DYCK and Yoshida and Connell teaches claim 2, DYCK further teaches wherein the modified Hay’s PCB is in electronic communication with by the acquisition and management system 46 , wherein by the acquisition and management system 46 comprises a computing device including a computer-readable medium including computer-executable instructions (¶0008¶0018¶0020 via controller 46 connected to detector 34) comprising: instructions to control supply of the voltage from the power supply (32,38¶0015) to periodically neutralize the first magnetic field (e.g., ¶0009¶0013) for a time period (e.g., ¶0008¶0022: to periodically neutralize the first magnetic field for a time period” is broad enough to cover a time period between two activations. The time period to neutralize the first magnetic field is an obvious variant of a time period between two activations (as taught in the reference) for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 4
Hay in view of DYCK and Yoshida and Connell teaches the apparatus of claim 3, DYCK further teaches wherein the power supply 32 includes a battery (¶0015), wherein the time period is selected based on one or more conditions in a well in which the apparatus is to be placed (e.g., ¶0008/ using in well is related to intended use and is obvious over prior art and does not have patentable weight, see MPEP 2111.04 ) for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 9
Hay in e.g., figs.1-6 teaches:
A system 120 configured for placement in a downhole tubular 108,110 and reduction (function met by detector 400) of magnetic debris accumulation (e.g., fig.5B, ¶0027,0033) on a downhole sensor400 , the apparatus 120 comprising:
a permanent electromagnet (408,410,412) including a permanent magnet 408 configured to emit a first magnetic field (e.g.,¶0066),
a bobbin (e.g.,¶0072 ) coupled with the permanent magnet (408),
a ferrite (e.g., ¶0068) rod 412 disposed along a longitudinal axis within the bobbin (e.g.,¶0072 Coil 410 may be located around core 412. Coil 410 may be mounted on a bobbin (not expressly shown)), and
a coil 410 wound around the bobbin and configured to receive voltage (e.g., via 420, figs. 5C,D,¶0027,0073) and emit a second magnetic field (function met by the AC electric current),
wherein the permanent electromagnet (408,410,412) is located within a sensor housing 402 and a shield 404,406 configured to protect the permanent electromagnet (408,410,412) from downhole fluids (function met by housing and shield see e.g., ¶0072,0080);
a circuit (e.g., ¶0079) coupled with the permanent electromagnet (408,410,412), the circuit (connected to 420) including the downhole sensor 400, the downhole sensor 400 configured to detect magnetized particles suspended in fluids of a reverse cementing process (function met by sensor 400 and magnetized particles suspended in fluids of a reverse cementing process);
Hay does not specifically teach to temporarily neutralize the first magnetic field of the permanent magnet, a printed circuit board (PCB), a power supply coupled to the coil and configured to supply the voltage to the coil; and a computing device including a machine-readable medium including instructions executable by the computing device, the instructions including instructions to control supply of the voltage from the power supply to periodically neutralize the first magnetic field for a time period, wherein the instructions to control supply of the voltage from the power supply comprise instructions to modify operation of the permanent electromagnet in response to an amount of power remaining in the power supply.
In the similar field of endeavor, DYCK in figs.1-3 discloses: A system configured for placement in a tubular 16 and reduction of magnetic debris (¶0003) accumulation on a sensor (surface 22/detector 34), the system comprising: a permanent electromagnet (¶0011) including a permanent magnet (24) configured to emit a first magnetic field (¶0006), a guide 20 coupled with the permanent magnet 24 a ferrite rod (¶0010, iron) disposed along a longitudinal axis (¶0009) within the guide 20, and a coil 30 wound around the guide 20 and configured to receive voltage 32 and emit a second magnetic field (¶0006¶0007) to temporarily neutralize the first magnetic field of the permanent magnet (¶0007¶0013), a circuit (fig.2) coupled with the permanent electromagnet 30/20/24, the circuit including the sensor (detector 34/surface 22), the sensor 34/22 configured to detect magnetized particles (¶0017) suspended in fluids 14 (functional language met by fluids 14 for of a reverse cementing process) and a computing device (controller 46 meet a machine-readable medium) including instructions (e.g., ¶0019-¶0022) the instructions including instructions to control supply of the voltage from a power supply 32 to periodically neutralize the first magnetic field for a time period in which a first fluid can move at least some of the magnetic debris away from the sensor (¶0016¶0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to DYCK‘s voltage apparatus a power supply coupled to the coil and configured to supply the voltage to the coil; and a computing device including a machine-readable medium including instructions executable by the computing device, the instructions including instructions to control supply of the voltage from the power supply to periodically neutralize the first magnetic field for a time period, wherein the instructions to control supply of the voltage from the power supply comprise instructions to modify operation of the permanent electromagnet in response to an amount of power remaining in the power supply. DYCK also teaches a power supply (32 to capacitor 38 to coil e.g., ¶0015) electrically coupled to the coil (30 via switch 44, controller 46) and configured to supply the voltage (e.g., ¶0006-¶0007) to the coil 30; and an acquisition and measurement system 46 coupled with the power supply (via switching 44) and configured to control the voltage supplied by the power supply to the coil (30 via 46: voltage is switched on or off), wherein the acquisition and measurement system 46 is configured to modify operation of the permanent electromagnet (controller 46 switch on and off via 40,42 the current to coil 30 based on the threshold). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use DYCK‘s voltage apparatus for Hay‘s apparatus and emit a second magnetic field to temporarily neutralize the first magnetic field of the permanent magnet as taught by DYCKS, and a power supply electrically coupled to the coil and configured to supply the voltage to the coil; and an acquisition and measurement system coupled with the power supply and configured to control the voltage supplied by the power supply to the coil, wherein the acquisition and measurement system is configured to modify operation of the permanent electromagnet. One of ordinary skill in the art knows excessive particle contamination of the fluid can impair the functionality of the system or even lead to a total failure would have been motivated to make this modification in order to be able to cleaning sensor without need to either replace or removing sensor manually, (¶0003,0004 DYCKS)4. The modified Hay with DYCK does not teach : in response to an amount of power remaining in the power supply. In the similar field of endeavor, Yoshida teaches a portable terminal control system in which a control means (3) individually controls the supply of power to peripheral circuits, comprising a voltage detection means (2) for detecting the voltage of a battery (1), a remaining capacity calculating means (4) for calculating remaining battery capacity from the detected voltage, and a judging means (5) that determines whether sufficient remaining capacity exists to satisfy a drive request , wherein, if the judgment is affirmative, the control means causes the battery to supply power to the requested circuit, and if negative, execution is denied. Yoshida further teaches that this scheme is employed "to extend the limited life of a battery as much as possible" (col.2 l.29-30) and "to prevent faulty operation... caused by a drop in voltage" resulting from insufficient remaining capacity when a power-consuming operation is initiated (e.g., col.4 l.1-5).Both Modified Hay with Dyck and Yoshida are directed to systems in which a control unit selectively triggers a power-consuming operation (discharge of a capacitor via an induction coil in Dyck; supply of power to a peripheral circuit in Yoshida) based on a signal from a monitoring/detection element. Yoshida's teaching — that a control system should verify sufficient remaining power-supply capacity before executing a triggered operation, in order to prevent incomplete or faulty execution and to conserve/extend the usable life of the power source — is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by Dyck's system. Specifically, Dyck's capacitor (38) must hold sufficient charge to induce a magnetic field that overcompensates the permanent magnet (24); an under-charged capacitor (e.g., due to self-discharge, as Dyck itself acknowledges) would fail to achieve the required overcompensation, resulting in incomplete cleaning of the sensor surface — a failure mode functionally analogous to the "faulty operation" and "insufficient remaining capacity" problems Yoshida addresses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Yoshida‘s controller for the modified Hay with DYCK‘s controller and power supply electrically coupled to the modified Hay’s coil and configured to supply the voltage to the coil; and an acquisition and measurement system coupled with the modified Hay’s power supply and configured to control the voltage supplied by the power supply to the coil, wherein the modified Hay’s acquisition and measurement system is configured to modify operation of the permanent electromagnet in response to an amount of power remaining in the power supply . One of ordinary skill in the art knows technique of detecting/calculating remaining power-supply capacity and gating the triggered operation (i.e., modifying operation of the switch/coil system) would have been motivated to make this modification in order to modify operation of the switch/coil system, in response thereto, as taught by Yoshida, in order to prevent unreliable or incomplete operation of the cleaning cycle and to conserve the power source, as suggested by Yoshida (col.2 l.29-30, col.4 l.1-5). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143(D), courts have ruled that Simple applying a known technique (Yoshida’s capacity-based gating of a triggered power-consuming operation) to a known product (Hay modified with Dyck's threshold-triggered discharge control) to yield predictable results (preventing failed or incomplete discharge cycles due to insufficient stored charge), is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Furthermore, In the similar field of endeavor, Connell in figs.3-4 teaches PCB (108), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Connell’s PCB for the modified Hay’s circuit. One of ordinary skill in the knows their PCB’s high reliability which can withstand high temperature, high humidity and other environmental changes, and art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to stably support the operation of electronic components.
Claim 10
Hay in view of DYCK, and Yoshida Connell teaches the system of claim 9, DYCK further teaches wherein the power supply includes a battery (32 ¶0015), wherein the time period is selected (e.g., ¶0015-¶0016 and in e.g.,¶0019 teaches the threshold amount can be selected by user and in e.g., ¶0022¶0039 teaches recording different time intervals based on different thresholds for particle loads that means different time intervals which user can change/select) but does not specifically teach based on remaining life of the battery for the same reason and motivation as cited above, Yoshida teaches wherein a time period of activation using a controller is selected based on remaining life of a battery (e.g.,col.4 l.32-34), for the reason, motivation cited above.
Claim 11
Hay in view of DYCK, and Yoshida Connell teaches the system of claim 9, DYCK further teaches further the power supply comprises a battery 32 in electronic communication with the coil 30 to provide the voltage to temporarily neutralize the magnetic field of the of the permanent magnet (¶0013) for the same reason and motivation above.
Claim 23
Hay in view of DYCK, and Yoshida Connell teaches the system of claim 10, Yoshida teaches wherein a time period of activation using a controller is selected based on remaining life of a battery (e.g., col.4 l.31-35), therefore, it further teaches wherein the instructions further include instructions to decrease the time period based on a determination that the remaining life of the battery is less than a threshold (the limitation is obvious variant of Yoshida’s system) for the same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 25
Hay in view of DYCK, and Yoshida Connell the system of claim 9, Connell teaches wherein the PCB 108 further includes one or more components (e.g., electronic controllers 79) configured to transmit data (function met by controller 79) from the downhole sensor (not shown probes cited e. g., in ¶0028 besides 130) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Connell’s PCB for the modified Hay’s circuit includes one or more components configured to transmit data from the modified Hay’s downhole sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to stably support the operation of electronic components.
DYCK teaches wherein the data comprises at least time stamps associated with sensor readings (e.g., ¶0036). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use DYCK‘s time stamps associated with sensor readings for the modified Hay‘s PCB includes one or more components configured to transmit data from the downhole sensor, wherein the modified Hay‘s data comprises at least one time stamps associated with sensor readings. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to manage neutralization of the first magnetic field.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay, US 20160194951 A1 in view of “DYCK”, EP 2455774 and Yoshida and “Sinclair”, US 6084403 A.
Claim 6
Hay in view of DYCK and Yoshida teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein the bobbin is made of high-temperature plastic.
In the similar field of endeavor, Sinclair teaches wherein the bobbin is made of high-temperature plastic (col.6 lines 13-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sinclair’s bobbin made of high-temperature plastic for the modified Hay’s bobbin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to protect the bobbin (col.6 lines 13-15).
Claims 7-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Hay, US 20160194951 A1 in view of “DYCK”, EP 2455774 and Yoshida and “Sinclair”, US 6084403 A and “Larson”, US 4802534 A.
Claim 7
Hay in view of DYCK and Yoshida and Sinclair teaches the apparatus of claim 6, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein the permanent magnet is a Samarian cobalt magnet.
In the similar field of endeavor, Larson teaches wherein the permanent magnet is a Samarian cobalt magnet (e.g., col.5 line 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Larson’s Samarian cobalt for the modified Hay‘s magnet. One of ordinary skill in the art would know it is strong permanent magnet and have been motivated to make this modification in order to its great strength.
Claim 8
Hay in view of DYCK, and Yoshida Sinclair and Larson teaches the apparatus of claim 7, DYCK further teaches wherein a north pole 28 (not south pole) of the Samarian cobalt magnet is adjacent to the modified Hay’s bobbin, and wherein a south pole 26 (not north pole) of the Samarian cobalt magnet is opposite the modified Hay’s bobbin (e.g., ¶0010), however, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, first the system still has the same function, i.e., the direction of electric current and magnetic field and direction of magnetic field generated by permanent magnet cancel out each other to clean surface that is the same function and there is absolutely no criticality to the limitations related to the specific claimed arrangement. Although the arrangement are slightly different, the function is same. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use DYCK‘s south pole of the modified Dyck Samarian cobalt magnet is adjacent to the bobbin, and wherein a north pole of the Samarian cobalt magnet is opposite the bobbin as they are obvious variant of each other.
Claims 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay, US 20160194951 A1 in view of “DYCK”, EP 2455774 and Connell, US 20040020635 A and “Sinclair”, US 6084403 A.
Claim 12
Hay in view of DYCK, Connell teaches the system of claim 9, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein the bobbin is made of high-temperature plastic.
In the similar field of endeavor, Sinclair teaches wherein the bobbin is made of high-temperature plastic (col.6 lines 13-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sinclair’s bobbin made of high-temperature plastic for the modified Hay’s bobbin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to protect the bobbin in case of high temperature.
Claims 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay, US 20160194951 A1 in view of “DYCK”, EP 2455774 and Yoshida and Connell, US 20040020635 A, and “Larson”, US 4802534 A.
Claim 13
Hay in view of DYCK, Connell teaches the system of claim 9, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein the permanent magnet is a Samarian cobalt magnet.
In the similar field of endeavor, Larson teaches wherein the permanent magnet is a Samarian cobalt magnet (e.g., col.5 line 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Larson’s Samarian cobalt for the modified Hay‘s magnet. One of ordinary skill in the art would know it is strong permanent magnet and have been motivated for this modification in order to its great strength.
Claim 14
Hay in view of DYCK, and Yoshida Connell, Larson teaches the system of claim 13, wherein a north pole of the Samarian cobalt magnet is adjacent to the bobbin, and wherein a south pole of the Samarian cobalt magnet is opposite the bobbin (¶0027). Dyck teaches the arrangement for Poles 26 and 28 of permanent magnet and direction of electric current in coil 30 so that the magnetic field generated by coil 30 to be opposite the magnetic field from the permanent magnet to neutralize the attraction of particles 12 in fluid 18, This means the claimed arrangement and the Dyck’s arrangement have the same function and - It has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, there is absolutely no criticality to the limitations related to the arrangement of south and north poles of magnet.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay, US 20160194951 A1 in view of “DYCK”, EP 2455774 and Yoshida and Connell, US 20040020635 A1 further in view of Schell, US6588250B2.
Claim 21
Hay in view of DYCK and Yoshida and Connell teaches the apparatus of claim 3, DYCK teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions further comprise instructions to applies the time period based on a determination that output of the sensor (e.g., ¶0016¶0038 e.g., when output of detector reaches to a predetermined threshold ) but the combination does not specifically teach to increase the time period based on a determination that output of the downhole sensor is above a baseline output. However, firstly prolonging the calibration intervals or increasing time between calibration intervals to increase the accuracy or quality improvement and also shortening the calibration intervals to reduce calibration costs with well-known autocalibration systems are well known in prior art5. Secondly and more specifically:
In the similar field of endeavor, Schell teaches to increase the time period based on a determination that output of the sensor is above a baseline output (e.g., fig.4 S56: NO option for when the response is above baseline and still calibration is delayed therefore inherently the time interval with next calibration is prolonged).Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Schell‘s controller for the modified Hay‘s system to increase the time period based on a determination that output of the sensor is above a baseline output as taught by Schell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to save the costs from skipping additional calibrations. Regarding limitation “downhole sensor”, the sensor being in downhole does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, because all of the structural and functional limitations are met. Besides, it isn’t given much patentable weight. it is related to the intended use of the system that does not have patentable weight, i.e., it would be obvious to use the sensor in downhole or any other place and using sensor in a downhole does not make the claimed limitation patentable and intended use limitations would not distinguish a claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus that satisfies all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus.
Claim 22
Hay in view of DYCK and Yoshida and Connell and Schell teaches the apparatus of claim 21, Schell teaches wherein the computer executable instructions further comprise instructions to decrease the time period based on a determination that output of the downhole sensor is at or below a baseline output (e.g.,fig.4 : S56/YES option for when the response is dropped below baseline, the sensor is automatically calibrated) for the same reason and motivation as cited for claim 21.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay, US 20160194951 A1 in view of “DYCK”, EP 2455774 and Yoshida and Cooper, US 20160061990 A1.
Claim 27
Hay in view of DYCK and Yoshida teaches the method of claim 15, but the combination does not teach further comprising changing a polarity of the permanent electromagnet to increase a strength of the permanent electromagnet. In the similar field of endeavor, Cooper in fig.8 teaches changing a polarity (¶0051-0054) of the permanent electromagnet (applied in 608) to increase a strength of the permanent electromagnet (e.g., ¶0047-0054). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Cooper‘s controller for the modified Hay‘s method comprising changing a polarity of the modified Hay’s permanent electromagnet to increase a strength of the permanent electromagnet. One of ordinary skill in the art knows different techniques for well logging (¶0001 of Cooper) and need to control the field strength in these techniques would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable a neutron tube to control the characteristic energy spectra of neutron bursts to selected target material(e.g., ¶0047 Cooper).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 ( Additionally, please see Maher, US 20210285301 A1 and also Connell, US 20040020635 A1 in conclusion of this action that teach housing and shield to protect a downhole sensor from slurry)
2 ( Additionally, please see Maher, US 20210285301 A1 and also Connell, US 20040020635 A1 in conclusion of this action that teach housing and shield to protect a downhole sensor from slurry)
3a control unit 46 connected to the detector 34 is provided, by means of which the discharge of the capacitor 38 can be controlled as a function of a signal from the detector 34. The control unit 46 thus replaces the manual actuation of a switching device, so that the sensor device 10 can be operated automatically over a longer period of time. As soon as the signal from the detector 34 reaches a predetermined threshold value, the control unit 46 opens the first switch 40 and closes the second switch 42 for a short time. The discharge of the capacitor 38 via the induction coil 30 then takes place as described above.
4 ( Additionally, please see Maher, US 20210285301 A1 and also Connell, US 20040020635 A1 in conclusion of this action that teach housing and shield to protect a downhole sensor from slurry)
5 See e.g., Reber in listed prior art
Prosecution Insights