DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 are pending in the present 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/19/2024 and 1/13/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). In this case, claim 8 is an apparatus claim that includes method step “wherein the probe is rotated from an initial position”. However, this rejection may be overcome by amending the phrase to recite “wherein the probe is operable to be rotated from an initial position”.
Regarding claim 9, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). In this case, claim 9 is an apparatus claim that includes method step “wherein the probe rotates a specified number of degrees”. However, this rejection may be overcome by amending the phrase to recite “wherein the probe is operable to be rotated
Regarding claim 10, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). In this case, claim 10 is an apparatus claim that includes method step “wherein the one or more sensors measure a fluid pressure, a fluid temperature, a fluid density, or a fluid composition”. However, this rejection may be overcome by amending the phrase to recite “wherein the one or more sensors are operable to measure a fluid pressure, a fluid temperature, a fluid density, or a fluid composition”.
Regarding claim 11, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). In this case, claim 11 is an apparatus claim that includes method step “wherein the probe is extended from the downhole tool and forms a fluid seal with the first inside surface or the second inside surface”. However, this rejection may be overcome by amending the phrase to recite “wherein the probe is operable to be extended from the downhole tool and form
Regarding claim 12, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). In this case, claim 12 is an apparatus claim that includes method step “wherein the probe is rotated a specified number of degrees until a tool-formation quality threshold is satisfied”. However, this rejection may be overcome by amending the phrase to recite “wherein the probe is operable to be rotated a specified number of degrees until a tool-formation quality threshold is satisfied”.
Regarding claim 13, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). In this case, claim 13 is an apparatus claim that includes method step “wherein the tool-formation quality threshold is not satisfied and a probe controller directs the probe to rotate to a specified degree offset from the initial position”. However, this rejection may be overcome by amending the phrase to recite “wherein the probe is further operable such that if the tool-formation quality threshold is not satisfied,
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, 7, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Broding (US Pat. No. 4,829,486, hereinafter Broding).
Regarding claim 1, Broding teaches an apparatus (see Fig. 2, 3, and 6, sonde 30), comprising: a downhole tool (see Fig. 2, sonde 30), operable to be inserted into a borehole (see Fig. 2, sonde 30 operable to be inserted into a borehole 22); and a probe (see Fig. 3, probe elements within sonde 30), attached to and supported by the downhole tool and operable to rotate a specified number of degrees of rotation with respect to a first inside surface of the borehole (see Fig. 2 and 3; see also col. 4, lines 54-62, probe including sensors 46/48 attached and supported by the sonde 30 and may be rotated a specified number of degrees by the motor 36 with respect to a first inside surface of the borehole 22 as described and shown).
Regarding claim 2, Broding above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Broding teaches that the probe rotates axially along a connection point to the downhole tool (see Fig. 2 and 3; see also col. 4, lines 54-62, probe 46/48 rotates axially along connection point 42 of the sonde 30).
Regarding claim 3, Broding above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Broding teaches that the probe comprises one or more sensors capable of collecting data (see Fig. 3 and 6, sensors 46/48 collect data).
Regarding claim 4, Broding above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Broding teaches that the probe rotates a specified number of degrees from an initial position as specified by a probe controller (see col. 5, lines 31-52, probe 46/48 may be rotated from a fix azimuth at measured angles as described).
Regarding claim 7, Broding above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Broding 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).
Regarding claim 18, Broding teaches a method, comprising: positioning a probe at a downhole location of a borehole (see Fig. 2 and claim 1, probe 46/48 positioned at a downhole location of a borehole 22); extending the probe toward a first inside surface of the borehole or a second inside surface of a casing (see Fig. 2, probes include sensors 46/48 which extend away from the axial post 42 towards the surface of the borehole 22 and the inside surface of the casing 12); and rotating the probe to a specified degree offset from an initial position, wherein the probe includes at least one sensor and the sensor is collecting data with respect to the casing or a subterranean formation proximate the probe (see Fig. 2 and 3; see also col. 4, lines 54-62, probe including sensors 46/48 attached and supported by the sonde 30 and may be rotated a specified number of degrees by the motor 36 with respect to a first inside surface of the borehole 22 as described and shown).
Regarding claim 20, Broding above teaches all of the limitations of claim 18.
Furthermore, Broding teaches that the probe passes through or stops at the initial position, further comprising, rotating the probe to a determined degree offset from the initial position (see col. 5, lines 31-52, probe rotates constantly through the initial position as described, wherein the probe is measured relative to the offset from the initial position of the probe, thus considered the determined degree).
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 5, 8, 9, 11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broding as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Angehrn (US Pat. No. 4,711,122, hereinafter Angehrn).
Regarding claim 5, Broding above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Broding above fails to teach that the probe is further operable to form at least a partial fluidic seal with the first inside surface.
Angehrn teaches a downhole tool (see Abstract; see also Fig. 1, all elements), including a probe (see Fig. 1, probe includes transducer 40 and flexible casing means 10) such that the probe is further operable to form at least a partial fluidic seal with the first inside surface (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 10-38, probe casing 10 forms partial fluidic seal with the inside surface of the borehole).
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 apparatus of Broding with the probe formation to seal against the first inside surface of the borehole as suggested by Angehrn. This allows for the acoustic transducer signals to pass through the borehole wall without signal degradation due to mud in the borehole as suggested by Angehrn (see col. 1, lines 17-29).
Regarding claim 8, Broding teaches a system (see Fig. 2, 3, and 6, sonde 30), comprising: a downhole tool (see Fig. 2, sonde 30), operable to support one or more probes (see Fig. 3, probe elements 46/48 within sonde 30), wherein the downhole tool is configured to be inserted into a borehole (see Fig. 2, sonde 30 operable to be inserted into a borehole 22); and a probe, operable to be extended from the downhole tool (see Fig. 2, probe elements 46/48 extend from the axial post 42; wherein the probe is rotated from an initial position (see Fig. 2 and 3; see also col. 4, lines 54-62, probe including sensors 46/48 attached and supported by the sonde 30 and may be rotated a specified number of degrees by the motor 36 with respect to a first inside surface of the borehole 22 as described and shown), and the probe includes one or more sensors (46/48).
Broding fails to teach that the probe is 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.
Angehrn teaches a downhole tool (see Abstract; see also Fig. 1, all elements), including a probe (see Fig. 1, probe includes transducer 40 and flexible casing means 10) such that the probe is further operable to extend and form at least a partial fluidic seal with a first inside surface of the borehole (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 10-38, probe casing 10 extends and forms partial fluidic seal with the inside surface of the borehole).
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 apparatus of Broding with the probe formation to seal against the first inside surface of the borehole as suggested by Angehrn. This allows for the acoustic transducer signals to pass through the borehole wall without signal degradation due to mud in the borehole as suggested by Angehrn (see col. 1, lines 17-29).
Regarding claim 9, Broding as modified by Angehrn above teaches all of the limitations of claim 8.
Furthermore, Broding teaches that the probe rotates a specified number of degrees (see Fig. 2 and 3; see also col. 4, lines 54-62, probe including sensors 46/48 attached and supported by the sonde 30 and may be rotated a specified number of degrees by the motor 36).
Regarding claim 11, Broding as modified by Angehrn above teaches all of the limitations of claim 8.
Furthermore, Broding also teaches that the probe is extended from the downhole tool and forms a fluid seal with the first inside surface or the second inside surface (see Fig. 2, fluid seal formed between the probe 46/48 that extends from the axial post 42 and the second inside surface of outer shell 12).
Regarding claims 14-16, Broding as modified by Angehrn above teaches all of the limitations of claim 8.
Furthermore, Broding teaches a probe controller, operable to direct operations of the probe, to analyze collected sensor data, and to communicate the collected sensor data to one or more other computing systems (see Fig. 6, signal processor 302/302’ considered as probe controller; see also col. 1, lines 20-32, signal processor controls probe and collects sensor data to be communicated to the surface for further processing); wherein the probe controller comprises one or more processors (302/302’); wherein the probe controller is part of the downhole tool (see Fig. 2 and 6, signal processor 302/302’ considered as probe controller and part of the downhole tool 30).
Regarding claim 17, Broding as modified by Angehrn above teaches all of the limitations of claims 8 and 14.
Broding as modified by Angehrn above fails to specifically teach that the probe controller is operable to direct an adjustment of a borehole operation by directing the operations of downhole tools using the collected sensor data.
However, Boring does teach utilizing at the surface the collected data (see claim1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize probe controller data of Broding as modified by Angehrn above such that adjustment to the borehole operations were made. This is because it is well known in the art to utilize borehole measurements in order to modify, e.g. the drilling direction, of the operation so as to improve removal of the desired fluids.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broding.
Regarding claim 6, Broding above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Broding above fails to specifically teach that the probe utilizes an elliptical shape.
However, Broding does teach that the probe includes two sensors on opposite sides of a cylinder (see Fig. 2, sensors 46/48 on opposite side of the cylindrical surface 42).
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 device such that the probe was overall elliptically shaped in the cross-sectional view. This would ensure that the sensors were provided with stability while being rotated around the central axis by surrounding the sensors with a rotating housing.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broding in view of Angehrn as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sherrill (US PGPUB 2017/0175526 A1, hereinafter Sherrill).
Regarding claim 10, Broding as modified by Angehrn above teaches all of the limitations of claim 8.
Broding as modified by Angehrn above fails to teach that the one or more sensors measure a fluid pressure, a fluid temperature, a fluid density, or a fluid composition.
Sherrill teaches a downhole probe (see Abstract) that includes a fluid temperature sensor (see [0043]).
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 device of Broding as modified by Angehrn above with the temperature sensor of Sherrill. This allows for completion or production computations as suggested by Sherrill (see [0043]).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broding in view of Angehrn as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Proett (US PGPUB 2020/0217195 A1, hereinafter Proett).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Broding as modified by Angehrn above teaches all of the limitations of claims 8 and 11.
Broding as modified by Angehrn above fails to teach that the probe is rotated a specified number of degrees until a tool-formation quality threshold is satisfied; wherein the tool-formation quality threshold is not satisfied and a probe controller directs the probe to rotate to a specified degree offset from the initial position.
Proett teaches a downhole probe (see Abstract) wherein the probe is rotated a specified number of degrees until a tool-formation quality threshold is satisfied; wherein the tool-formation quality threshold is not satisfied and a probe controller directs the probe to rotate to a specified degree offset from the initial position (see [0154], probe is rotated based on measurement results so as to improve the accuracy of the derived parameters of the formations as described).
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 device of Broding as modified by Angehrn above such that the probe was rotated specifically to improve measurement quality as suggested by Proett. This allows for the accuracy of the derived parameters to be improved as suggested by Proett (see [0154]).
Claims 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broding as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Proett.
Regarding claim 19, Broding above teaches all of the limitations of claim 18.
Broding fails to teach measuring a characteristic quality parameter between the probe and one of the first inside surface or the second inside surface; and rotating the probe a specified number of degrees from a current orientation of the probe when the characteristic quality parameter does not satisfy a tool-formation quality threshold and the probe has available degrees of rotation.
Proett teaches a downhole probe and method (see Abstract) wherein the probe measures a characteristic quality parameter between the probe and the wellbore surface (see [0127]-[0128], probe coefficients are determined based on measurements as described); and rotating the probe a specified number of degrees from a current orientation of the probe when the characteristic quality parameter does not satisfy a tool-formation quality threshold and the probe has available degrees of rotation (see [0154], probe is rotated based on measurement results so as to improve the accuracy of the derived parameters of the formations as described).
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 device of Broding above such that the probe was rotated specifically to improve measurement quality as suggested by Proett. This allows for the accuracy of the derived parameters to be improved as suggested by Proett (see [0154]).
Regarding claim 21, Broding above teaches all of the limitations of claims 18 and 20.
Broding above fails to teach that the determined degree offset corresponds to a best seal quality parameter.
Proett teaches a downhole probe and method (see Abstract) that includes rotating the probe a specified number of degrees from a current orientation of the probe to improve measurement quality (see [0154], probe is rotated based on measurement results so as to improve the accuracy of the derived parameters of the formations as described).
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 device of Broding above such that the probe was rotated specifically to improve measurement quality as suggested by Proett, wherein the quality may include seal quality parameters. This would allow for the accuracy of the derived parameters to be improved in a manner as suggested by Proett (see [0154]).
Regarding claim 22, Broding above teaches all of the limitations of claims 18 and 20.
Broding above fails to teach that a probe controller selects the determined degree offset.
Proett teaches a downhole probe and method (see Abstract) that includes a probe controller that controls rotating the probe a specified number of degrees from a current orientation of the probe to improve measurement quality (see [0008] and [0154], probe is rotated based on measurement results so as to improve the accuracy of the derived parameters of the formations as described, thus considered by the Examiner as including a probe controller for monitoring and manipulating the probe).
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 device of Broding above such that a probe controller was used to rotate the probe to determined offsets as suggested by the method of Proett. This would allow for the accuracy of the derived parameters to be improved in a manner as suggested by Proett (see [0154]).
Conclusion
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, Patrick Assouad can be reached at (571) 272-2210. 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