DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed June 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 8-13, 18, and 20 have been amended. Currently, claims 1-22 are pending in the application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 6/26/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. The rejection of claims 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 6/26/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) over Broding have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made of claims 1-4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) over Rodney as applied below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 6/26/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 5 and 8-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. 103 over Broding, Angehrn, Sherrill, and Proett have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. The rejections of claims 5 and 8-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. 103 over Broding, Angehrn, Sherrill, and Proett have been withdrawn. However, the Examiner notes that claim 5 is now objected to. Please see below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rodney et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0125077 A1, hereinafter Rodney).
Regarding claim 1, Rodney teaches an apparatus (see Fig. 1B and 6, all elements; see also Abstract), comprising: a downhole tool (see Fig. 1B, downhole tool 52), operable to be inserted into a borehole (see Fig. 1B, downhole tool 52 inserted into borehole as shown); and a probe (see Fig. 1B and 6, probe considered the sensor 114 and sensor chassis 110 in Fig. 6), attached to and supported by the downhole tool and operable to rotate a specified number of degrees of rotation, along an axis that is in a different orientation compared to an axis of the downhole tool, with respect to a first inside surface of the borehole (see Fig. 6 and [0010]-[0011], sensors 114 on chassis 110 attached and supported by the downhole tool 52 and may be rotated a specified number of degrees by the gear 116, along an axis (x-axis 124) that is in a different orientation compared to an axis (primary z-axis 122) of the downhole tool).
Regarding claim 2, Rodney above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Rodney teaches that the probe rotates axially along a connection point to the downhole tool (see Fig. 6, probe 114/110 rotates axially about the connection point of the gear 116 along the axis 124 as shown).
Regarding claim 3, Rodney above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Rodney teaches that the probe comprises one or more sensors capable of collecting data (see Fig. 6 and [0010]-[0011], sensor 114 collects data).
Regarding claim 4, Rodney above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Rodney teaches that the probe rotates a specified number of degrees from an initial position as specified by a probe controller (see [0008] and [0010]-[0011], probe 114/110 rotated by probe controller (computer) 64).
Regarding claim 7, Rodney above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Rodney teaches that the probe is further operable to form a seal with one of the first inside surface or a second inside surface of a casing (see Fig. 2, probe elements sealed within the inner surface of the casing of the sonde 30).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodney as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chaney (US PGPUB 2017/0108616 A1, hereinafter Chaney).
Regarding claim 6, Rodney above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Rodney above fails to specifically teach that the probe utilizes an elliptical shape.
Chaney teaches a borehole sensor (see Abstract; see also Fig. 5a), wherein the sensor probe (see Fig. 5a, probe including sensors 24 and substrate 22) utilizes an elliptical shape (see Fig. 5a and [0078], use of elliptical shape for probe 22/24).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the probe shape of Rodney with the elliptical design of Chaney. This would improve the sensor accuracy by along for the sensor to conform to the profile of a section of the borehole wall within minimal air gap or stand-off as described by Chaney (see [0083]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, Broding in view of Angehrn, Sherrill, and Proett as previously presented and Rodney in view of Chaney above represents the best art of record. However, Broding in view of Angehrn, Sherrill, and Proett as previously presented and Rodney in view of Chaney above fails to encompass all of the limitations of dependent claim 5.
Regarding claim 5, Broding in view of Angehrn, Sherrill, and Proett as previously presented and Rodney in view of Chaney above fails to critically teach the probe is further operable to form at least a partial fluidic seal with the first inside surface.
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in dependent claim 5 and the examiner can find no teachings for a system and method as particularly claimed and including the above limitations, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Claims 8-22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 8-22, Broding in view of Angehrn, Sherrill, and Proett as previously presented and Rodney in view of Chaney above represents the best art of record. However, Broding in view of Angehrn, Sherrill, and Proett as previously presented and Rodney in view of Chaney above fails to encompass all of the limitations of currently amended independent claims 8 and 18.
Regarding claim 8, Broding in view of Angehrn, Sherrill, and Proett as previously presented and Rodney in view of Chaney above fails to critically teach a system comprising a probe, operable to be extended from the downhole tool and form at least a partial seal with a first inside surface of the borehole or a second inside surface of a casing, wherein the probe is operable to be rotated, along an axis that is in a different orientation compared to an axis of the downhole tool.
Regarding claim 18, Broding in view of Angehrn, Sherrill, and Proett as previously presented and Rodney in view of Chaney above fails to critically teach a method comprising extending the probe toward a first inside surface of the borehole or a second inside surface of a casing; and rotating the probe to a specified degree offset from an initial position, the probe is operable to rotate along an axis that is in a different orientation compared to an axis of a downhole tool supporting the probe; and continuing to rotate the probe along at least one axis until a quality of the seal measurement satisfies a tool-formation quality threshold.
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in independent claims 8 and 18 and the examiner can find no teachings for a system and method as particularly claimed and including the above limitations, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights