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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aronstam et al. (US 6,745,833, hereafter Aronstam) in view of Mason et al. (US 2014/0014334, hereafter Mason) and McClung, III. (US 2012/0178653, hereafter McClung)
With respect to claim 1, Aronstam teaches a system for a well (wellbore 10) having a drill string (drill string 20), an annulus (annulus 13), and a drilling fluid (drilling fluid 60), the system comprising: a drilling microchip (flowable device 63) having a memory, wherein the drilling microchip is configured to be pumped into the drill string (20) and up the annulus (13) using the drilling fluid (60) to obtain and store data about the well in the memory; a sensor (data exchange device 72) having a detection range, wherein the sensor is configured to indicate a presence of the drilling microchip (63) in the detection range; and a computer system (controller 73) electronically connected to the microchip detector (72), wherein the sensor is configured to send a signal to the computer system (73) upon indication of the presence of the drilling microchip, wherein the computer system is further configured to, after receipt of the signal, extract the stored data from the memory of the drilling microchip. (col. 5, line 49 – col. 6, line 30; col. 7, line 66 – col. 8, line 20; Figs. 1, 3)
Aronstam does not teach wherein the microchip contains a magnet and the sensor is a magnetic sensor, or a mud return line hydraulically connected to the annulus of the well and a shale shaker connected to the mud return line, wherein the detector is connected to the shale shaker.
Mason teaches a system for a well having a drill string comprising a magnet (magnet 57) and a magnetic sensor (sensing device 59) having a detection range, wherein the sensor is configured to indicate a presence of the magnet in the detection range. (par. 25-26, Figs. 1-3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the structure of Aronstam to use a magnet on the microchip and a magnetic sensor, as taught by Mason, in order to be able to obtain data about the presence of the microchip in an accurate and predictable manner.
McClung teaches a system for a well having a drill string (DR), an annulus (wellbore 101), and a drilling fluid (DF), the system comprising a mud return line hydraulically connected to the annulus of the well, a shale shaker (SS) connected to the mud return line and detectors (DRT) connected to the shale shaker. (par. 138-140, 146-148, Figs. 7-8)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the structure of Aronstam to include a shale shaker and a detector associated with the shale shaker, as taught by McClung, in order to be able to detect the presence of the microchip when it reaches that location.
With respect to claim 11, Aronstam teaches a method for a well (wellbore 10) having a drill string (drill string 20), an annulus (annulus 13), and a drilling fluid (drilling fluid 60), the method comprising: pumping a drilling microchip (flowable device 63) having a memory, into the drill string (20) and up the annulus (13) of the well using the drilling fluid (60); measuring and storing data about the well in the memory of the drilling microchip (63); indicating a presence of the drilling microchip (63) and sending a signal from a sensor (data exchange device 72) to a computer system (controller 73) upon indication of the presence of the drilling microchip, upon receipt of the signal, extracting the measured and stored data from the memory using the computer system. (col. 5, line 49 – col. 6, line 30; col. 7, line 66 – col. 8, line 20; Figs. 1, 3)
Aronstam does not teach the microchip having a magnet, sensing the presence of the microchip in a detection range of a magnetic sensor by having an interaction between the magnetic sensor and the magnet, or pumping the drilling microchip out of the well to a shale shaker using a mud return line.
Mason teaches a method for a well having a drill string comprising a having a magnet (magnet 57) and a magnetic sensor (sensing device 59) having a detection range, wherein the sensor is configured to indicate a presence of the magnet in the detection range. (par. 25-26, Figs. 1-3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Aronstam to use a magnet on the microchip and a magnetic sensor, as taught by Mason, in order to be able to obtain data about the presence of the microchip in an accurate and predictable manner.
McClung teaches a system for a well having a drill string (DR), an annulus (wellbore 101), and a drilling fluid (DF), the system comprising a shale shaker (SS) connected to a mud return line and detectors (DRT) connected to the shale shaker. (par. 138-140, 146-148, Figs. 7-8)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the structure of Aronstam to include a mud return line, a shale shaker and a magnetic detector associated with the shale shaker, as taught by McClung, in order to be able to detect the presence of the microchip when it reaches that location.
With respect to claims 2-4 and 12-14, although Aronstam, as modified by Mason and McClung, does not explicitly teach the magnetic sensor is mounted on a bracket connected to the shale shaker such that the drilling fluid passes between the bracket and the shale shaker, wherein the magnetic sensor further comprises a single strip sensor mounted to the bracket or a plurality of individual sensors mounted to the bracket, attachment structures such as brackets are well-known and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to mount a single strip sensor or a plurality of individual sensors on a bracket in order to secure the sensors such that the data can be obtained in a consistent manner.
With respect to claims 5-7 and 15-17, although Aronstam, as modified by Mason and McClung, does not explicitly discuss that the magnetic sensor further comprises a digital switching magnetic sensor, an analog magnetic sensor, or a passive magnetic sensor, these are all sensing methods that are known in the art and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to operate the magnetic sensor in an appropriate manner to receive predictable results.
With respect to claims 8-9 and 18-19, although Aronstam, as modified by Mason and McClung, does not explicitly teach wherein the magnet further comprises an AlNiCo magnet or a Neodymium magnet, Mason (par. 25) teaches the use of a rare earth magnet and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use either of these types of magnets in order to provide predictable magnetic fields for appropriate sensor results.
With respect to claims 10 and 20, Aronstam, as modified by Mason and McClung, teaches the magnet further comprises a SmCo magnet. (Mason, par. 25)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JILL E CULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights