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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 10-11, 13-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamison et al. (US 10,989,646, hereafter Jamison) in view of Rapoport. (US 5,978,694)
With respect to claim 1, Jamison teaches a method comprising: obtaining cuttings samples from a plurality of depths while drilling a wellbore in a subsurface formation; and performing the following operations for each of the cuttings samples, loading a cuttings sample (recovered subterranean material 208) into a container, loading the container into a magnetic susceptibility instrument (optical pumped magnetometer 100) configured with one or more sensors (photo detector 110), applying a magnetic field to the cutting sample in the container, and obtaining magnetic susceptibility measurements of the cuttings sample, via the one or more sensors based on a response of the cutting sample to the applied magnetic field. (col. 2, lines 16-39, col. 3, line 51 – col. 4, line 31, Fig. 1, 2A)
Jamison does not particularly teach the sensors are configure to directly sense a response of the cuttings sample to the applied magnetic field.
Rapoport teaches a method of determining the magnetic susceptibility of a sample (sample 18) by directly sensing a response of the sample to the applied magnetic field. (col. 4, line 55 – col. 5, line 4)
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 Jamison to include a direct sensing of the sample response, as taught by Rapoport, as an alternative method of determining the magnetic susceptibility of the sample. It should be noted that the prior art includes many different methods of sensing magnetic susceptibility.
With respect to claim 2, Jamison, as modified by Rapoport, teaches the cuttings samples are not washed prior to being loaded into the container. (Jamison, col. 5, lines 16-18 (unaltered state))
With respect to claim 4, Jamison, as modified by Rapoport, teaches the one or more sensors include one or more inductors (laser 102) and one or more receivers (photo detector 110). (Jamison, col. 2, lines 16-39, Fig. 1)
With respect to claim 5, Jamison, as modified by Rapoport, teaches applying a magnetic field to the cuttings sample in the container with the one or more inductors; and obtaining the magnetic susceptibility measurements of the cuttings sample with the one or more receivers based on a cuttings sample response to the magnetic field. (Jamison, col. 3, line 51 – col. 4, line 31, Fig. 2A)
With respect to claim 6, Jamison, as modified by Rapoport teaches the sample can be rotated during testing. (col. 4, lines 32-63, Fig. 2B) Although Jamison does not explicitly teach the one or more sensors translates along a length of the container to obtain the magnetic susceptibility measurements of the cuttings sample, and wherein the one or more sensors translates around a perimeter of the container to obtain the magnetic susceptibility measurements of the cuttings sample, this would have been an obvious modification of the system to provide a similar relative movement between the sample and the detectors while maintaining a stationary position of the sample itself to simplify the sample handling process.
With respect to claim 7, Jamison, as modified by Rapoport, teaches the one or more sensors remain stationary when obtaining the magnetic susceptibility measurements of the cuttings sample. (Jamison, col. 2, lines 16-39, col. 3, line 51 – col. 4, line 31, Fig. 1, 2A)
With respect to claim 10, Jamison teaches a system (system 400) comprising: a magnetic susceptibility instrument (optical pumped magnetometer 100) configured with one or more sensors (photo detector 110); a container configured to hold a cuttings sample (recovered subterranean material 208); a processor (system controller 418); and a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to, load the cuttings sample into the container, load the container into the magnetic susceptibility instrument, apply a magnetic field to the cutting sample in the container, and obtain magnetic susceptibility measurements of the cuttings sample, via the one or more sensors, based on a response of the cutting sample to the applied magnetic field. (col. 2, lines 16-39, col. 3, line 51 – col. 4, line 31, col. 5, line 55 – col. 6, line 54, Figs. 1-4)
Jamison does not particularly teach the sensors are configure to directly sense a response of the cuttings sample to the applied magnetic field.
Rapoport teaches a system for determining the magnetic susceptibility of a sample (sample 18) by directly sensing a response of the sample to the applied magnetic field. (col. 4, line 55 – col. 5, line 4)
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 Jamison to include a direct sensing of the sample response, as taught by Rapoport, as an alternative method of determining the magnetic susceptibility of the sample. It should be noted that the prior art includes many different methods of sensing magnetic susceptibility.
With respect to claim 11, Jamison, as modified by Rapoport, teaches the cuttings sample is not washed prior to being loaded into the container. (Jamison, col. 5, lines 16-18 (unaltered state))
With respect to claim 13, Jamison, as modified by Rapoport, teaches the one or more sensors include one or more inductors (laser 102) and a one or more receivers (photo detector 110). (Jamison, col. 2, lines 16-39, Fig. 1)
With respect to claim 14, Jamison, as modified by Rapoport, teaches the instructions further comprise; applying a magnetic field to the cuttings sample in the container with the one or more inductors; and obtaining the magnetic susceptibility measurements of the cuttings sample with the one or more receivers based on a cuttings sample response to the magnetic field. (Jamison, col. 3, line 51 – col. 4, line 31, Fig. 2A)
With respect to claim 15, Jamison, as modified by Rapoport, teaches the sample can be rotated during testing. (col. 4, lines 32-63, Fig. 2B) Although Jamison does not explicitly teach the one or more sensors translates along a length of the container to obtain the magnetic susceptibility measurements of the cuttings sample, and wherein the one or more sensors translates around a perimeter of the container to obtain the magnetic susceptibility measurements of the cuttings sample, this would have been an obvious modification of the system to provide a similar relative movement between the sample and the detectors while maintaining a stationary position of the sample itself to simplify the sample handling process.
With respect to claim 16, Jamison, as modified by Rapoport, teaches the one or more sensors remain stationary when obtaining the magnetic susceptibility measurements of the cuttings sample. (Jamison, col. 2, lines 16-39, col. 3, line 51 – col. 4, line 31, Fig. 1, 2A)
With respect to claim 17, Jamison teaches a magnetic susceptibility instrument (optical pumped magnetometer 100) comprising: a container, wherein a cuttings sample (recovered subterranean material 208) obtained while drilling a wellbore in a subsurface formation is loaded into the container; and one or more sensors (photo detector 110), each of the one or more sensors configured to obtain magnetic susceptibility measurements of the cuttings sample in the container based on a response of the cutting sample to a magnetic field applied to the cutting sample. (col. 2, lines 16-39, col. 3, line 51 – col. 4, line 31, Fig. 1, 2A)
Jamison does not particularly teach the sensors are configure to directly sense a response of the cuttings sample to the applied magnetic field.
Rapoport teaches an instrument for determining the magnetic susceptibility of a sample (sample 18) by directly sensing a response of the sample to the applied magnetic field. (col. 4, line 55 – col. 5, line 4)
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 Jamison to include a direct sensing of the sample response, as taught by Rapoport, as an alternative method of determining the magnetic susceptibility of the sample. It should be noted that the prior art includes many different methods of sensing magnetic susceptibility.
With respect to claim 18, Jamison, as modified by Rapoport, teaches the cuttings sample is not washed prior to being loaded into the container. (Jamison, col. 5, lines 16-18 (unaltered state))
With respect to claim 20, Jamison, as modified by Rapoport, teaches the sample can be rotated during testing. (col. 4, lines 32-63, Fig. 2B) Although Jamison does not explicitly teach the one or more sensors translates along a length of the container to obtain the magnetic susceptibility measurements of the cuttings sample, and wherein the one or more sensors translates around a perimeter of the container to obtain the magnetic susceptibility measurements of the cuttings sample, this would have been an obvious modification of the system to provide a similar relative movement between the sample and the detectors while maintaining a stationary position of the sample itself to simplify the sample handling process.
Claim(s) 3, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamison in view of Rapoport, as in the above rejection, and further in view of Smith. (US 2018/0355717)
With respect to claims 3, 12 and 19, Jamison, as modified by Rapoport, teaches all that is claimed, as in the above rejection, except wherein the magnetic susceptibility instrument is configured with an autoloader to load the container into the magnetic susceptibility instrument.
However, it is known to take and load samples automatically. For example, Smith teaches a sampling device which automatically loads sample containers into a detection instrument. (par. 28, 52, 63)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the structure of Jamison to include automatic loading, as taught by Smith, in order to perform the testing process more efficiently.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamison in view of Rapoport, as in the above rejection, and further in view of Mitchell et al. (US 2023/0184705, hereafter Mitchell)
With respect to claim 8, Jamison, as modified by Rapoport, teaches all that is claimed, as in the above rejection, except for explicitly teaching labeling each of the magnetic susceptibility measurements with depths based on the corresponding cuttings sample; generating a log comprising magnetic susceptibility measurements as a function of depth; and performing a subsurface operation based on the log.
Mitchell teaches a method of evaluating a downhole environment including taking and labeling a plurality of magnetic susceptibility measurements with depths based on corresponding cuttings samples; generating a log comprising magnetic susceptibility measurements as a function of depth; and performing a subsurface operation based on the log. (par. 6, 40-41, 58-62, Figs. 2, 11)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify the method of Jamison to include taking a plurality of samples and generating a log, as taught by Mitchell, in order to apply the measurements to control of the downhole process.
With respect to claim 9, Jamison, as modified by Rapoport and Mitchell, teaches determining one or more subsurface formation properties based on the log, wherein the subsurface formation properties include changes in lithological properties over depth and changes in diagenetic environment over depth. (Mitchell, par. 6, 40-41, 58-62, Figs. 2, 11)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 9, 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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