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.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response and amendments, filed 08/25/25, has been entered. Claims 1-23 are pending upon entry of this Amendment. The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to amendment. Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claims have been fully considered :
On page 7-10 of Remarks, Applicant argues that Hutchings does not teach a ferrite rod disposed along a longitudinal axis within a bobbin of claim 1. Office’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would prefer using bobbins to support a coil is not supported by either Reference.
Response:
the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Also: based on GUIDELINES in MPEP 2141.II and III
the focus when making a determination of obviousness should be on what a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have known at the relevant time, and on what such a person would have reasonably expected to have been able to do in view of that knowledge. This is so regardless of whether the source of that knowledge and ability was documentary prior art, general knowledge in the art, or common sense. What follows is a discussion of the Graham factual inquiries.
In this case, Dyck teaches all limitation except for using bobbin. In other words, the only limitation that Hutchings is relied upon is using bobbin. The reason for obviousness was presented and based on MPEP is not required to be presented in any of references. Nor, the test for obviousness is bodily corporation of Hutchings in Dyck. Neither reference, provides any indication that their combination would not have yielded a predictable result.
The examiner holds that a rejection of claim 1 over Dyck even without second art for obvious use of bobbin is accurate. Because, it is common knowledge in the art to use bobbin to support of coils and ordinary skill in the art knows Bobbins help keep thread organized, prevent tangling, and provide a consistent, reliable stitch when used.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Page 11 and claim 2: argument is relying on patentability of claim 1 and no argument specific to claim 2, therefore see the response for claim 1 above.
The applicant arguments on page 12 on claims 3, Dyck, Hutchings, and Connell fails to disclose “to periodically neutralize the first magnetic field for a time period” Dyck teaches time period between two activation.
Response:
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP 2111.01.
In this case, “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), and argument is not persuasive.
The applicant arguments on page 11 on claims 4, Dyck, Hutchings, and Connell fails to disclose a time period that is “selected based on one or more conditions in a well.”:
Response:
the reason for selecting the time period does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, because all of the structural and functional limitations are met. it isn’t given much patentable weight. Besides, based on MPEP 2111.04, typically no patentable distinction is made by an intended use or result unless some structural difference is imposed by the use or result on the structure or material recited in the claim, or some manipulative difference is imposed by the use or result on the action recited in the claim. Such intended use limitations would not distinguish a claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus that satisfies all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus, in this case, the intended use (the reason for selecting time period based on one or more conditions in a well) did not impose any limit on the interpretation of the claim. Furthermore, the combination of Dyck, Hutchings, and Connell teaches all limitation of claim4, and using the system in a well is intended use that does not have patentable weight.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
The applicant arguments on pages 12 on claims 4, Dyck, Hutchings, and Connell fails to disclose “selecting the time period …”:
Response:
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP 2111.01.
In this case, even the citations selected by the Applicant from Dyck in pages 11 and 12 of Remarks implies automatic control and time period for cleaning (or automatic activating counter magnetic field based on the measure of particles load), therefore, Dyck broadly reads on the limitation based on obviousness and the argument is not persuasive.
Page 11 and claim 5: argument is relying on patentability of claim 1 and no argument specific to claim 6, therefore see the response for claim 1 above.
Page 13 and claim 6: argument is relying on patentability of claim 1 and no argument specific to claim 6, therefore see the response for claim 1 above.
Page 13 and claim 7: argument is relying on patentability of claim 1 and no argument specific to claim 7, therefore see the response for claim 1 above.
Pages 14 and claim 8, the applicant argues that the arrangement of Dyck is different the claimed arrangement in claim 8:
Response:
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. More specifically, 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 as shown on reproduced drawing Dyck (reproduced by the applicant on page 14 of Remarks). This means the claimed arrangement and the Dyck’s arrangement have the same function and the applicant has not provided any reason or indication the arrangement of poles of Dyck does not result as same function of claim 8, therefore, the argument is not persuasive
Page 15 and claims 9 and11: argument is relying on patentability of claim 1 and no argument specific to claim 9 and 11, therefore see the response for claim 1 above.
Page 15-16 and claim 10: argument is Shen also fails to disclose “wherein the time period is selected based on remaining life of the battery.”
Response:
The examiner holds that “prolonging the battery life of the apparatus” cited by Shen is obvious variant of the same function reciting claim ” wherein the time period is selected based on remaining life of the battery”. In other words, these two statements are same statements with different wording. Prolonging the battery life means saving power of a battery or increasing remaining life of a battery that is taught by combination of Dyck and Shen based on obviousness. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Page 16 and claim 12: argument is relying on patentability of claim 9 and no argument specific to claim 12, therefore see the response for claim 1 and 9 above.
Page 16-17 and claim 13, argument is relying on patentability of claim 9 and no argument specific to claim 9, therefore see the response for claim 9 above.
Page 16-17 and claim 14: : see response to argument on claim 8; in short: 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 as shown on reproduced drawing Dyck by the applicant on page 14 of Remarks. This means the claimed arrangement and the Dyck’s arrangement have the same function and the applicant has not provided any reason or indication the arrangement of poles of Dyck does not result as same function of claim 8, therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Page 17-18 and claims 15-20: argument is repeating argument on the limitation “bobbin” which has been responded above.
On page 18, the argument regarding claim 23:
Response:
Shen teaches: In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, to save power for prolonging the battery life of the apparatus, preferably the time interval between two successive predetermined time points can be varied in dependence on the operation of the control module. Claim 23 recites: 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. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Shen‘s system and for the modified Dyck‘s system 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, as Shen’s teaching and claimed limitations are obvious variant of same function.
Therefore, the argument is 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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “DYCK”, EP 2455774 A1 in view of “Hutchings”, US 6051970 A.
Claim 1
DYCK in figs.1-3 discloses:
An apparatus configured for placement in a tubular 16 and reduction of magnetic debris accumulation on a sensor, 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).
DYCK does not specifically teach a bobbin.
In the similar field of endeavor, Hutchings in e.g., fig.1 teaches a bobbin to support coil 1a, and a ferrite rod (col.3 L.7) disposed along a longitudinal axis within the bobbin (e.g., col.2 L.54-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Hutchings ‘bobbin for DYCK’s ferrite rod and the modified DYCK’s bobbin coupled with the permanent magnet, the modified DYCK’s ferrite rod disposed along a longitudinal axis within the bobbin and the modified DYCK’s coil wound around the bobbin as taught by Hutchings. One of ordinary skill in the art would prefer using bobbins to support coil and have been motivated to make this modification in order toa better support for the coil.
Regarding “configured for placement in a downhole tubular and reduction of magnetic debris accumulation on a downhole sensor” the examiner notes that “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” See MPEP 2111.02 (II). Furthermore, DYCK teaches placement in a tubular and reduction of magnetic debris accumulation on a sensor for any fluid containing ferromagnetic particles (¶0003) and no matter where is the sensor or tubular, DYCK’s apparatus is configured to do the same function in a downhole. see also MPEP 2173.05(g)
Claim 5
DYCK in view of Hutchings teaches the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising:
a battery (¶0015) in electronic communication with the coil 30 to provide the voltage to temporarily neutralize the first magnetic field of the of the permanent magnet (e.g., ¶0006-¶0007).
Claims 2-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “DYCK”, EP 2455774 A1 in view of “Hutchings”, US 6051970 A and Connell, US 20040020635 A1.
Claim 2
DYCK in view of Hutchings teaches claim 1, DYCK further teaches further comprising:
a circuit (e.g., fig.2) coupled with the coil 30, the circuit including the sensor (34/with surface 22), the 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)).
The modified DYCK does not teach a PCB.
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 DYCK’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
DYCK in view of Hutchings and Connell teaches claim 2, DYCK further teaches wherein the PCB is in electronic communication with 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 a power supply (32¶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).
Claim 4
DYCK in view of Hutchings 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 ).
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “DYCK”, EP 2455774 A1 in view of “Hutchings”, US 6051970 A and “Sinclair”, US 6084403 A.
Claim 6
DYCK in view of Hutchings 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 DYCK’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 over “DYCK”, EP 2455774 A1 in view of “Hutchings”, US 6051970 A and “Sinclair”, US 6084403 A and “Larson”, US 4802534 A.
Claim 7
DYCK in view of Hutchings and 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 DYCK‘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
DYCK in view of Hutchings, 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 bobbin, and wherein a south pole 26 (not north pole) of the Samarian cobalt magnet is opposite the 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 9 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “DYCK”, EP 2455774 A1 in view of “Hutchings”, US 6051970 A and Connell, US 20040020635 A Tang, US 20210199838 A1.
Claim 9
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) including instructions (e.g., ¶0019-¶0022) he 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).
DYCK does not specifically teach a downhole sensor in a reverse cementing process, a bobbin, a PCB, including a machine-readable medium including instructions executable by the computing device.
In the similar field of endeavor, Hutchings in e.g., fig.1 teaches a bobbin to support coil 1a, and a ferrite rod (col.3 L.7) disposed along a longitudinal axis within the bobbin (e.g., col.2 L.54-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Hutchings ‘bobbin for DYCK’s ferrite rod and the modified DYCK’s bobbin coupled with the permanent magnet, the modified DYCK’s ferrite rod disposed along a longitudinal axis within the bobbin and the modified DYCK’s coil wound around the bobbin as taught by Hutchings. One of ordinary skill in the art would prefer using bobbins to support coil and have been motivated to make this modification in order toa better support for the coil.
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 DYCK’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.
Regarding “configured for placement in a downhole tubular and reduction of magnetic debris accumulation on a downhole sensor” and sensor in fluids of reversing cementing the examiner notes that the intended use that do not have a patent weight. See MPEP 2111.02 (II). Furthermore, DYCK teaches placement in a tubular and reduction of magnetic debris accumulation on a sensor for any fluid containing ferromagnetic particles (¶0003) and no matter where is the sensor or tubular, DYCK’s apparatus is configured to do the same function.
Examiner notes that regarding using machine learning that is automating a manual activity, the courts have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 III (“Automating A Manual Activity”). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2114.IV, broadly claiming an automated means to replace a manual function to accomplish the same result does not distinguish over the prior art. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this case, combination of DYCK Hutchings, Connell , at least teaches the limitation without using artificial intelligence reads on the limitation.
In the similar field of endeavor, Tang teaches using machine learning technique in downhole acquision system (¶0285/228).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Tang’s machine learning techniques for the modified DYCK’s system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use automatic system with eliminating the errors of traditional system.
Claim 11
DYCK in view of Hutchings Connell and Tang teaches the system of claim 9, DYCK further teaches further comprising:
a battery32 in electronic communication with the coil 30 to provide the voltage to temporarily neutralize the magnetic field of the of the permanent magnet (¶0013).
Claims 10 and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “DYCK”, EP 2455774 A1 in view of “Hutchings”, US 6051970 A and Connell, US 20040020635 A Tang, US 20210199838 A1 and “Shen”, US 20150297849 A1.
Claim 10
DYCK in view of Hutchings Connell and Tang 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.
In the similar field of endeavor, Shen teaches wherein a time period of activation using a controller is selected based on remaining life of a battery (e.g.,¶0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the modified DYCK’s threshold and therefore time period based on remaining life of the battery as taught by Shen. One of ordinary skill in the art would know how difficult and expensive replacing batteries can be and have been motivated to make this modification in order to conserve energy of batteries and prolonging battery life (Shen¶0016). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2143(D), courts have ruled that Simple applying a known technique (Shen’s controlling and selecting time periods) to a known product (DYCK’s system of reduction of magnetic debris) to yield predictable results (prolonging life of battery), 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 23
DYCK in view of Hutchings Connell Tang, and Shen teaches the system of claim 10, Shen teaches wherein a time period of activation using a controller is selected based on remaining life of a battery (e.g.,¶0016), 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 Shen’s system).
Claims 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “DYCK”, EP 2455774 A1 in view of “Hutchings”, US 6051970 A and Connell, US 20040020635 A Tang, US 20210199838 A1and “Sinclair”, US 6084403 A.
Claim 12
DYCK in view of Hutchings Connell and Tang 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 DYCK’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 “DYCK”, EP 2455774 A1 in view of “Hutchings”, US 6051970 A and Connell, US 20040020635 A Tang, US 20210199838 A1 , and “Larson”, US 4802534 A.
Claim 13
DYCK in view of Hutchings Connell and Tang 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 DYCK‘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
DYCK in view of Hutchings Connell and Tang 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 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “DYCK”, EP 2455774 A1 in view of “Hutchings”, US 6051970 A and “Maher”, US 20210285301 A1.
Claim 15
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 does not specifically teach a bobbin and downhole sensor.
In the similar field of endeavor, Hutchings in e.g., fig.1 teaches a bobbin to support coil 1a, and a ferrite rod (col.3 L.7) disposed along a longitudinal axis within the bobbin (e.g., col.2 L.54-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Hutchings ‘bobbin for DYCK’s ferrite rod and the modified DYCK’s bobbin coupled with the permanent magnet, the modified DYCK’s ferrite rod disposed along a longitudinal axis within the bobbin and the modified DYCK’s coil wound around the bobbin as taught by Hutchings. One of ordinary skill in the art would prefer using bobbins to support coil and have been motivated to make this modification in order toa better support for the coil.
Regarding “configured for placement in a downhole tubular conveyed in a borehole and reduction of magnetic debris accumulation on a downhole sensor” the examiner notes that: This claim limitation is considered a function limitation which does not distinguish the claim structure from the prior art. Absent showing unobvious structural differences it appears, prima facie, that the prior art DYCK discloses all the claimed structure that is capable of performing the recited claim functions. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2173.05(g).
In the similar field of endeavor, Maher in fig.1 teaches a downhole tubular conveyed in a borehole, a downhole magnetic debris removal apparatus (180), and reduction of magnetic debris accumulation fluid 110 in a downhole (e.g., Abstract/¶0023).
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 method for reducing magnetic debris accumulation on a downhole apparatus within a tubular conveyed in a borehole of Maher.
Claim 16
DYCK in view of Hutchings and Maher teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising:
ceasing the supply of the voltage to the permanent electromagnet after a waiting time has passed; and
analyzing 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)).
Claim 17
DYCK in view of Hutchings and Maher teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the waiting time indicates a duration of the voltage supply to the permanent electromagnet, and wherein the waiting time is adjusted based, at least in part, on the extent of magnetic debris removal (e.g., ¶0018¶0019).
Claim 18
DYCK in view of Hutchings and Maher teaches the method of claim 16, 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.
Claim 19
DYCK in view of Hutchings and Maher teaches the method of claim 15, but the modified DYCK does not teach wherein the first fluid comprises a slurry, and wherein the slurry comprises magnetic particles detectable by the downhole sensor, however, using the same system for slurry is intendent use and is not considered a claim limitation.
Maher in fig.1 teaches a downhole magnetic debris removal apparatus (180) and reducing magnetic debris accumulation on a slurry fluid 110 in a downhole (e.g., ¶0023)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modified DYCK’s method for downhole slurry fluid of Maher.
Claim 20
DYCK in view of Hutchings and Maher teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the voltage originates from a battery 32 and wherein a timing sequence dictating a length of time for supplying the voltage to the permanent electromagnet 24 is adjusted 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).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “DYCK”, EP 2455774 A1 in view of “Hutchings”, US 6051970 A and Connell, US 20040020635 A1 further in view of Schell, US6588250B2.
Claim 21
Dyck in view of Hutchings 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 art1. 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 Dyck‘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
Dyck in view of Hutchings 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 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reber US20200292374A1
Reber teaches prolonging the calibration intervals or increasing time between calibration intervals to reduce calibration costs and also shortening the calibration intervals to increase the accuracy or quality improvement with well-known autocalibration systems are well known in prior art. (e.g., ¶0010)
Coble, Jamie, et al. "Calibration monitoring for sensor calibration interval extension: Identifying technical gaps." 2012 Future of Instrumentation International Workshop (FIIW) Proceedings. IEEE, 2012.
Coble summarizes a recent state-of-the-art assessment of online calibration monitoring including sensors, calibration practice, and OLM algorithms. This assessment
Identifies several technical needs were identified, including calibration interval extension.
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 See e.g., Reber cited in conclusion