DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 17 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 13 and 19, “the mineral” has no antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 16, it is unclear how a static uniform magnetic field excludes NMR signals produced by hydrogen nuclei. It is the RF field that selects which nuclei produce signals, and thereby which nuclei do not produce signals.
Claim 20 depends on Claim 19, which recites that the “mineral comprises a contaminant.” Claim 20 recites that the contaminant comprises one of many substances, yet none of those substances are minerals. It is unclear how the mineral can be any of the non-mineral contaminants listed in Claim 20.
Claims 3-4, 14-15 and 17-19 are rejected as depending on rejected Claims.
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, 4 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. (US 2014/0225607, Pub Aug 14, 2014, herein Edwards '607) in view of Araneda et al. ("Lithium-7 qNMR as a method to quantify lithium content in brines using benchtop NMR"; November 19, 2020; Royal Society of Chemistry; 146; pp.882-888; herein Araneda).
Regarding Claim 1, Edwards '607 teaches:
A nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) sensor (downhole tool 10/NMR instrument 7 [0018] Fig 1-3) configured for deployment in an extraction well (borehole 2 [0017]) or Earth formation (earth formation 4 [0017] Fig 4), the NMR sensor comprising:
a sensor body (7) configured for deployment in the extraction well (2) or Earth formation (4) in order to measure a concentration (estimate the fraction of different functional groups [0029]) within the extraction well (2) or Earth formation (4) as part of a mineral extraction process (wireline tools can be deployed during an extraction process, during which subsurface materials are conveyed to the surface; "subsurface material" may be used to refer to any material below the surface of the earth 3, such as the formation 4, a formation fluid or solid, and a borehole material [0017]);
a sample cavity (sample chamber 15 [0018] Fig 1-3) within the sensor body (7), wherein the NMR sensor (7) is configured to receive a liquid sample material (sample of the subsurface material [0018]) inside the sample cavity (15);
a magnetic array (array of magnets 21 [0019] Fig 2) disposed inside the sensor body (7) and adapted to produce a first magnetic field in a measurement zone (21 provides a uniform magnetic field inside of the sample chamber 15 [0019]) inside the sample cavity (15), wherein the magnetic array (21) substantially surrounds an entirety of the sample cavity (15); and
a transmit / receive array (transmitter antennas 22 and receiver antenna 24 [0020-0021] Fig 2) disposed inside the sensor body (7), wherein the transmit / receive array (22,24) is adapted to:
produce a second magnetic field within the measurement zone (Antennas 22 provide pulses of RF energy within sample chamber 15 [0020] Fig 2); and
detect NMR signals emitted from the sample material within the measurement zone (Receiver antenna 24 receives the resulting electromagnetic waveform based on magnetic spins in the molecules in the sample [0021] Fig 2);
wherein the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field are adapted for direct detection and measurement of the concentration within the sample material (estimate the fraction of different functional groups [0029]; In step 86, processed NMR data is used to determine types of molecules and their distribution/fraction [0030] Fig 8)
Edwards '607 does not teach:
A mineral-sensitive nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) sensor
measure a mineral concentration
wherein the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field are adapted for direct detection and measurement of the mineral concentration within the sample material, wherein the mineral comprises non-hydrogen nuclei.
However, Araneda teaches:
The Examiner is combining Edwards in view of Araneda by using the operating principle of the benchtop apparatus of Araneda, and applying it to the downhole apparatus of Edwards. Specifically, the transmitting coils 22 of Edwards can operate at the Larmor frequency of 7-Li, which is 23.46 MHz
A mineral-sensitive nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) sensor (A novel 7-Li quantitative NMR (qNMR) method [Abstract])
measure a mineral concentration (determine the Lithium content in real brine samples [Abstract])
wherein the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field are adapted for direct detection and measurement of the mineral concentration within the sample material, wherein the mineral comprises non-hydrogen nuclei (The Nanalysis 60PRO benchtop NMR spectrometer uses a magnet to produce a static field - "first magnetic field" - to align the Lithium nuclei - "non-hydrogen nuclei" - and an RF signal at 23.46 MHz - "second magnetic field" - for determining the 7-Li concentration - "mineral concentration" - within the brine sample - "sample material" [pp.883-884].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Edwards '607 in view of Araneda by having a mineral-sensitive nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) sensor measure a mineral concentration wherein the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field are adapted for direct detection and measurement of the mineral concentration within the sample material, wherein the mineral comprises non-hydrogen nuclei because brine is a major source of lithium, and the amount lithium needed to be sourced is projected to triple and more in the coming years, and NMR allows for lithium to be directly quantified in brines without any additional sample preparation, dilution, or need for deuterated solvents as taught by Araneda [p.882-883].
Regarding Claim 4, Edwards '607 teaches:
the magnetic array (21) and the transmit / receive array (22, 24) substantially surround the sample cavity (15).
Regarding Claim 13, Edwards '607 teaches:
the sample material comprises groundwater (formation fluid [0017])
Edwards '607 does not teach:
the substance comprising non-hydrogen nuclei comprises a dissolved NMR- sensitive mineral that is dissolved in the groundwater
However, Araneda teaches:
the substance comprising non-hydrogen nuclei comprises a dissolved NMR-sensitive mineral (7-Li [p.882]) that is dissolved in the groundwater (Lithium-containing brines [p.882])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Edwards '607 in view of Araneda by having the substance comprising non-hydrogen nuclei comprises a dissolved NMR- sensitive mineral that is dissolved in the groundwater because brine is a major source of lithium, and the amount lithium needed to be sourced is projected to triple and more in the coming years, and NMR allows for lithium to be directly quantified in brines without any additional sample preparation, dilution, or need for deuterated solvents as taught by Araneda [p.882-883].
Regarding Claim 14, Edwards '607 does not teach the limitations.
However, Araneda teaches:
the dissolved NMR-sensitive mineral comprises lithium (7-Li [p.882])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Edwards '607 in view of Araneda by having the substance comprising non-hydrogen nuclei comprises a dissolved NMR- sensitive mineral that is dissolved in the groundwater because brine is a major source of lithium, and the amount lithium needed to be sourced is projected to triple and more in the coming years, and NMR allows for lithium to be directly quantified in brines without any additional sample preparation, dilution, or need for deuterated solvents as taught by Araneda [p.882-883].
Regarding Claim 15, Edwards '607 teaches:
the first magnetic field is substantially uniform within the measurement zone (21 provides a uniform magnetic field inside 15 [0019].).
Regarding Claim 16, Edwards '607 does not teach the limitations.
However, Araneda teaches:
the substantially uniform magnetic field is adapted to facilitate exclusion of NMR signals produced by hydrogen nuclei (see the 112(b) rejection; The Nanalysis 60PRO benchtop NMR spectrometer uses a magnet to produce a static field to align the Lithium nuclei and an RF signal at 23.46 MHz for determining the 7-Li concentration within the brine sample [pp.883-884].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Edwards '607 in view of Araneda by having the substance comprising non-hydrogen nuclei comprises a dissolved NMR- sensitive mineral that is dissolved in the groundwater because brine is a major source of lithium, and the amount lithium needed to be sourced is projected to triple and more in the coming years, and NMR allows for lithium to be directly quantified in brines without any additional sample preparation, dilution, or need for deuterated solvents as taught by Araneda [p.882-883].
Regarding Claim 17, Edwards '607 teaches:
the transmit / receive array (22,24) is coupled to surface electronics (processing system 9 disposed at the surface [0017] Fig 1) via a transmission line (armored wireline 6 [0017] Fig 1), and wherein the surface electronics (9) are adapted to control (processing system 9 sends command to downhole tool 10/NMR instrument 7) the NMR measurement (7).
Regarding Claim 18, Edwards '607 teaches:
the first magnetic field has a spatial gradient which is approximately zero within the measurement zone (21 applies a homogenous field in the sample chamber 15 [0019] Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Edwards '607 does not teach the limitations.
However, Araneda teaches:
the sample material comprises groundwater (Lithium-containing brines [p.882]) and wherein the mineral (Lithium [p.882]) comprises a contaminant (Lithium is not potable past a certain quantity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Edwards '607 in view of Araneda by having the sample material comprises groundwater and wherein the mineral comprises a contaminant because brine is a major source of lithium, and the amount lithium needed to be sourced is projected to triple and more in the coming years, and NMR allows for lithium to be directly quantified in brines without any additional sample preparation, dilution, or need for deuterated solvents as taught by Araneda [p.882-883].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards ‘607 in view of Araneda and further in view of Edwards et al. (US 2020/0292477, Pub Sep 17, 2020, herein Edwards '477).
Edwards '607 does not explicitly teach a flow control device.
However, Edwards '477 teaches:
a flow control device (Pump 15 [0019] Fig 1) configured to control a flow of the sample material (Formation Fluid Sample [0019] Fig 1) into the sample cavity (Sample Chamber 12 [0019] Fig 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Edwards '607 in view of Edwards '477 by having a flow control device configured to control a flow of the sample material into the sample cavity because it allows the fluid to be drawn into the sample as taught by Edwards '477 [0019].
Claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards ‘607 in view of Araneda and further in view of Sarkar et al. ("Multinuclear NMR Imaging of Fluid Phases in Berea Sandstone"; 1993; Journal of Magnetic Resonance; Series A 103; pp.314-317; herein Sarkar).
Edwards '607 and Araneda do not teach the limitations.
However, Sarkar teaches:
the contaminant comprises a benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX) substance, a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substance, a hydrocarbon (hydrocarbon [p.314]), or an organic contaminant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Edwards '607 and Araneda in view of Sarkar by having the contaminant comprises a benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX) substance, a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substance, a hydrocarbon, or an organic contaminant because 7-Li NMR imaging distinguishes a brine phase from a hydrocarbon phase as taught by Sarkar [p.314].
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 RAHUL MAINI whose telephone number is (571)270-1099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9am-4pm, EST.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/R.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 07/16/2026
/A.A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights