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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendments filed March 9th, 2026, the following occurred: claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended; claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-12, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeed et al. (US 20220065058 A1, “Saeed”)in view of Glasgow et al. (US 20190100992 A1, “Glasgow”), Cunningham et al. (US 20190011304 A1, “Cunningham”), and Arbabi et al. (US 12067161 B1, “Arbabi”).
Regarding claim 1, Saeed discloses a system, comprising: a first transducer configured to move in a first direction towards an object, to transmit a first sonic pulse only in the first direction towards an object, to receive a first echo of the first sonic pulse from the object, and to generate a first time-of-flight value A of the first sonic pulse; a second transducer configured to move in the first direction towards the object, to transmit a second sonic pulse only in the first direction towards the object, to receive a second echo of the second sonic pulse from the object, and to generate a second time-of-flight value B of the second sonic pulse, a controller configured to receive the distance value D, and responsive to the distance value D to generate a control signal to control movement of a mobile device(Fig. 1 (10)). ([0042], when moving from one downhole size to another, the platform, using one or more sensors detects the transition and issues control signals to the computing module to retract or extend the treads on the arms depending on the transition type) ([0052], TOF may emit ultrasonic signals. TOF sensors operate as a range sensor and transmit signals in a forward direction as the mobility platform moves through the downhole environment in order to estimate the width of the environment in front of the platform and determine the presence of objects such as an XN-Nipple.)([0049],Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 (76) illustrates three time of flight sensors at the end of housing (72) of the mobile body)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the ultrasonic time of flight sensors would implicitly generate a first and second time of flight value and be moving in a first direction which is the same as the direction of the transmitted ultrasonic signals)
Saeed may not explicitly teach wherein the second transducer is physically offset from the first transducer by an offset distance Δd along the first direction; a processor including code executed therein configured to receive the first time-of-flight value A and the second time-of-flight value B, to generate a speed-of-sound value S, and to determine a distance value D of the object from at least one of the first and second transducers using the speed-of-sound value S and at least one of the first time-of-flight value A and the second time-of-flight value B, respectively; a first transducer configured to generate a first sonic pulse having a first center frequency, a second transducer configured to generate a second sonic pulse having a second center frequency different from the first center frequency.
Glasgow teaches wherein the second transducer is physically offset from the first transducer by an offset distance Δd along the first direction ([0022] acoustic transducers as part of an array are axially spaced from one another at a predetermined distance from each other along a longitudinal axis)([0046], time of flight values are measured for an acoustic wave to travel from the acoustic transducer to the wellbore wall and back);
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic transducers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Saeed to include the transducer spacing of Glasgow with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling generation and generation of more substantial frequency shifts between emitted and reflected waves [0022].
Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow may not explicitly teach a processor including code executed therein configured to receive the first time-of-flight value A and the second time-of-flight value B, to generate a speed-of-sound value S, and to determine a distance value D of the object from at least one of the first and second transducers using the speed-of-sound value S and at least one of the first time-of-flight value A and the second time-of-flight value B, respectively; a first transducer configured to generate a first sonic pulse having a first center frequency, a second transducer configured to generate a second sonic pulse having a second center frequency different from the first center frequency.
Cunningham teaches a processor including code executed therein configured to receive the first time-of-flight value A and the second time-of-flight value B, to generate a speed-of-sound value S, and to determine a distance value D of the object from at least one of the first and second transducers using the speed-of-sound value S and at least one of the first time-of-flight value A and the second time-of-flight value B, respectively ([0045], control computer is configured to determine time of flight values for multiple acoustic signals based on known speed of sound values in order to calculate a distance travelled by the acoustic signals)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic transducers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Saeed, to include the distance calculation procedure of Cunningham with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accurately calculating a distance travelled by the acoustic wave when compensating for the speed of sound in the medium of travel [0009].
Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow and Cunningham, may not explicitly teach and a controller configured to receive the distance value D, and responsive to the distance value D to generate a control signal to control movement of a mobile device; a first transducer configured to generate a first sonic pulse having a first center frequency, a second transducer configured to generate a second sonic pulse having a second center frequency different from the first center frequency.
Arbabi teaches a first transducer configured to generate a first sonic pulse having a first center frequency, a second transducer configured to generate a second sonic pulse having a second center frequency different from the first center frequency ([column 5, lines 32-38], ultrasonic transducers (38) within each array (24) may have different center frequencies such that when used together, the array achieves the positioning accuracy of a wideband transducer without a reduction in quality factor.)([column12, lines 42-44], control signal may control phases of transducers to transmit a short pulse).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic transducers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow and Cunningham, to include the differing center frequencies of Arbabi with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of achieving the positioning accuracy of a wideband transducer without a reduction in quality factor [column 5, lines 32-38].
Regarding claim 2, Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham, and Arbabi teaches the system of claim 1. Saeed further teaches wherein the mobile device includes the controller ([0046], computing module includes the motor controller and core processing unit).
Regarding claim 3, Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham, and Arbabi teaches the system of claim 1. Saeed further teaches wherein the controller is external to the mobile device. ([0054]-[0055], present invention also includes the mobility platform as well as a control apparatus (Fig. 13 (94)) which includes a hand-held controller mounted in a housing with an antenna and is configured to instruct the mobility platform to move)
Regarding claim 4, Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham, and Arbabi teaches the system of claim 1. Cunningham further teaches wherein the speed-of-sound value S corresponds to the speed of sound of a medium in an environment of the mobile device.([0030] speed of sound corresponds to the speed of sound through the medium in which the acoustic wave is travelling)
Regarding claim 9, Saeed discloses a mobile device, comprising: a chassis ([0026] the various modules are interconnected and have respective housings which give the mobility platform its overall shape so that the mobility platform can be defined as a generally cylindrical object); a propulsion subsystem having an end section and configured (Fig. 3 (14), responsive to a control signal, to propel the chassis in a first direction towards an object ([0047], motor can be controlled by receiving control signals from the computing module)([0007], computing module further configured to control drive module to drive the mobility platform to and within the upcoming portion of the downhole environment); a first transducer disposed in the end section and configured to move in the first direction towards the object , transmit a first sonic pulse only in a first direction towards the object, to receive a first echo of the first sonic pulse from the object, and to generate a first time-of-flight value A of the first sonic pulse; a second transducer disposed in the end section and configured to move in the first direction towards the object, to transmit a second sonic pulse only in the first direction towards the object, to receive a second echo of the second sonic pulse from the object, and to generate a second time-of-flight value B of the second sonic pulse (Fig. 2 (12) illustrates a sensor module at an end section of the propulsion subsystem (14))([0049] sensor module includes at least one ToF sensor)([0052] ToF sensors may be ultrasonic) wherein a controller is configured to receive the distance value D, and is responsive to the distance value D to generate the control signal to control movement of a mobile device by the propulsion subsystem ([0042], when moving from one downhole size to another, the platform, using one or more sensors detects the transition and issues control signals to the computing module to retract or extend the treads on the arms depending on the transition type) ([0052], TOF may emit ultrasonic signals. TOF sensors operate as a range sensor and transmit signals in a forward direction as the mobility platform moves through the downhole environment in order to estimate the width of the environment in front of the platform and determine the presence of objects such as an XN-Nipple.) [0049],Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 (76) illustrates three time of flight sensors at the end of housing (72) of the mobile body (it is the examiner’s interpretation that the ultrasonic time of flight sensors would implicitly generate a first and second time of flight value and be moving in a first direction which is the same as the direction of the transmitted ultrasonic signals).
Saeed may not explicitly teach wherein the second transducer is physically offset from the first transducer by an offset distance Δd along the first direction; and a processor including code executed therein configured to receive the first time-of-flight value A and the second time-of-flight value B, to generate a speed-of-sound value S, and to determine a distance value D of the object from at least one of the first and second transducers using the speed-of-sound value S and at least one of the first time-of-flight value A and the second time-of-flight value B, respectively.
Glasgow teaches wherein the second transducer is physically offset from the first transducer by an offset distance Δd along the first direction; ([0022] acoustic transducers as part of an array are axially spaced from one another at a predetermined distance from each other along a longitudinal axis)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic transducers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mobile device of Saeed to include the transducer spacing of Glasgow with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling generation and generation of more substantial frequency shifts between emitted and reflected waves [0022].
Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, may not explicitly teach and a processor including code executed therein configured to receive the first time-of-flight value A and the second time-of-flight value B, to generate a speed-of-sound value S, and to determine a distance value D of the object from at least one of the first and second transducers using the speed-of-sound value S and at least one of the first time-of-flight value A and the second time-of-flight value B, respectively.
Cunningham further teaches a processor including code executed therein configured to receive the first time-of-flight value A and the second time-of-flight value B, to generate a speed-of-sound value S, and to determine a distance value D of the object from at least one of the first and second transducers using the speed-of-sound value S and at least one of the first time-of-flight value A and the second time-of-flight value B, respectively. ([0045], control computer is configured to determine time of flight values for multiple acoustic signals based on known speed of sound values in order to calculate a distance travelled by the acoustic signals)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic transducers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mobile device of Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow to include the distance calculation procedure of Cunningham with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accurately calculating a distance travelled by the acoustic wave when compensating for the speed of sound in the medium of travel [0009].
Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow and Cunningham may not explicitly teach a first transducer configured to generate a first sonic pulse having a first center frequency, a second transducer configured to generate a second sonic pulse having a second center frequency different from the first center frequency.
Arbabi teaches a first transducer configured to generate a first sonic pulse having a first center frequency, a second transducer configured to generate a second sonic pulse having a second center frequency different from the first center frequency ([column 5, lines 32-38], ultrasonic transducers (38) within each array (24) may have different center frequencies such that when used together, the array achieves the positioning accuracy of a wideband transducer without a reduction in quality factor.)([column12, lines 42-44], control signal may control phases of transducers to transmit a short pulse).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic transducers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Saeed, as modified in view of Cunningham and Glasgow, to include the differing center frequencies of Arbabi with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of achieving the positioning accuracy of a wideband transducer without a reduction in quality factor [column 5, lines 32-38].
Regarding claim 10, Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham, and Arbabi teaches the mobile device of claim 9. Saeed further teaches wherein the chassis includes the controller ([0046], the computing module, which is positioned intermediately amongst the other modules, includes the controller).
Regarding claim 11, Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham, and Arbabi teaches the mobile device of claim 9. Saeed further teaches wherein the controller is external to the chassis. Saeed further teaches wherein the controller is external to the chassis ([0054]-[0055], present invention also includes the mobility platform as well as a control apparatus (Fig. 13 (94)) which includes a hand-held controller mounted in a housing with an antenna and is configured to instruct the mobility platform to move)
Regarding claim 12, Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham, and Arbabi teaches the mobile device of claim 9. Cunningham further teaches wherein the speed-of-sound value S corresponds to the speed of sound of a medium in an environment of the mobile device.([0030] speed of sound corresponds to the speed of sound through the medium in which the acoustic wave is travelling)
Regarding claim 17, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, the method corresponding to claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham, and Arbabi teaches the method of claim 17. Saeed further teaches wherein the mobile device includes the processor, the first transducer, and the second transducer. ([0028], sensor module includes the processor and the time of flight sensor)([0049], sensor module includes at least one ToF sensor) ([0052], reflected signals from ToF sensors are converted into distance values. ToF signals may be ultrasound)
Claim(s) 5, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeed in view of Glasgow, Cunningham, Arbabi, and Han (US 7587936 B2, “Han”).
Regarding claim 5, Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham, and Arbabi teaches the system of claim 1. Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham, and Arbabi may not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to determine the speed-of-sound value S according to S = Δd / |A-B|, wherein the value |A-B| is the absolute value of a difference of the first time-of-flight value A and the second time-of-flight value B.
Han teaches which is the closest identified prior art, teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the speed-of-sound value S according to S = Δd / |A-B|, wherein the value |A-B| is the absolute value of a difference of the first time-of-flight value A and the second time-of-flight value B. ([column 9, lines 6-27], teaches a method for calculating the speed of sound in a borehole, with equation 1 teaching that the speed of sound (v) being equal to the radial offset (Lo) between transducers divided by the difference in round-trip time of flight between the transducers)(It is the examiner’s interpretation that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that speed is a scalar value and would implicitly be positive, meaning it would include the absolute value of the travel time difference, even in an instance where the travel time difference was negative).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic transducers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham and Arbabi to include the speed of sound calculation of Han, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of determining the speed of sound in the wellbore fluid across multiple transducers [column 9, lines 6-27].
Regarding claim 13, Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham, and Arbabi teaches the mobile device of claim 9. Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham, and Arbabi may not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to determine the speed-of-sound value S according to S = Δd / |A-B|, wherein the value |A-B| is the absolute value of a difference of the first time-of-flight value A and the second time-of-flight value B.
Han teaches which is the closest identified prior art, teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the speed-of-sound value S according to S = Δd / |A-B|, wherein the value |A-B| is the absolute value of a difference of the first time-of-flight value A and the second time-of-flight value B. ([column 9, lines 6-27], teaches a method for calculating the speed of sound in a borehole, with equation 1 teaching that the speed of sound (v) being equal to the radial offset (Lo) between transducers divided by the difference in round-trip time of flight between the transducers)(It is the examiner’s interpretation that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that speed is a scalar value and would implicitly be positive, meaning it would include the absolute value of the travel time difference, even in an instance where the travel time difference was negative).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic transducers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham, and Arbabi to include the speed of sound calculation of Han, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of determining the speed of sound in the wellbore fluid across multiple transducers [column 9, lines 6-27].
Regarding claim 19, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 5 and is therefore indicated as allowable for similar reasons
Claim(s) 6-8 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeed in view of Glasgow, Cunningham, Arbabi, and Norli et al. (WO 2015020530 A2, “Norli”).
Regarding claim 6, Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham and Arbabi teaches the system of claim 1, Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham and Arbabi may not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to determine the distance D according to D = S × A, wherein A > B.
Norli teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the distance D according to D = S × A, wherein A > B ([pg. 6], time-of-flight, divided by 2 and multiplied by the propagation speed of sound in the medium, gives an estimate of the distance between the transducers and the casing wall)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that in the event that A>B, the distance calculation is still completed for all transducers to get the distance measurements, including a distance measurement that is D= S x A).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic transducers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham and Arbabi to include the distance calculation of Norli, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of estimating a distance in the annular space between the transducer and casing wall [pg. 6].
Regarding claim 7, Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham and Arbabi teaches the system of claim 1. Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham and Arbabi may not explicitly teach the processor is configured to determine the distance D according to D = S × B, wherein B > A.
Norli teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the distance D according to D = S × A, wherein B > A ([pg. 6], time-of-flight, divided by 2 and multiplied by the propagation speed of sound in the medium, gives an estimate of the distance between the transducers and the casing wall)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that in the event that B>A, the distance calculation is still completed for all transducers to get the distance measurements including a distance measurement that is D= S x B).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic transducers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham and Arbabi to include the distance calculation of Norli, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of estimating a distance in the annular space between the transducer and casing wall [pg. 6].
Regarding claim 8, Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham and Arbabi teaches the system of claim 1. Saeed, as modified in view of Cunningham and Arbabi may not explicitly teach wherein the first and second transducers are spaced apart by a length L in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Norli teaches wherein the first and second transducers are spaced apart by a length L in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction. (Fig. 7 (110) illustrates transducers spaced apart by a length L in a first direction and a second direction L, which is perpendicular to the first direction)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic transducers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, Cunningham and Arbabi to include the second direction transducer spacing of Norli, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of fully covering the internal casing wall circumference [pg. 5].
Regarding claim 14, Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow and Cunningham teaches the mobile device of claim 9. Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow, and Cunningham may not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to determine the distance D according to D = S × A, wherein A > B.
Norli teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the distance D according to D = S × A, wherein A > B ([pg. 6], time-of-flight, divided by 2 and multiplied by the propagation speed of sound in the medium, gives an estimate of the distance between the transducers and the casing wall)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that in the event that A>B, the distance calculation is still completed for all transducers to get the distance measurements, including a distance measurement that is D= S x A)(Additionally , See 112b rejection for claim 14).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic transducers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mobile device of Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow and Cunningham, to include the distance calculation of Norli, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of estimating a distance in the annular space between the transducer and casing wall [pg. 6].
Regarding claim 15, Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow and Cunningham, teaches the mobile device of claim 9. Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow and Cunningham may not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to determine the distance D according to D = S × B, wherein B > A.
Norli teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the distance D according to D = S × A, wherein B > A ([pg. 6], time-of-flight, divided by 2 and multiplied by the propagation speed of sound in the medium, gives an estimate of the distance between the transducers and the casing wall)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that in the event that B>A, the distance calculation is still completed for all transducers to get the distance measurements including a distance measurement that is D= S x B) (Additionally , See 112b rejection for claim 15).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic transducers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mobile device of Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow and Cunningham, to include the distance calculation of Norli, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of estimating a distance in the annular space between the transducer and casing wall [pg. 6].
Regarding claim 16, Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow and Cunningham, teaches the mobile device of claim 9. Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow and Cunningham, may not explicitly teach wherein the first and second transducers are spaced apart in the end section by a length L in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Norli teaches wherein the first and second transducers are spaced apart in the end section by a length L in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction. (Fig. 7 (110) illustrates transducers spaced apart by a length L in a first direction and a second direction L, which is perpendicular to the first direction)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic transducers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Mobility device of Saeed, as modified in view of Glasgow and Cunningham, to include the second direction transducer spacing of Norli, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of fully covering the internal casing wall circumference [pg. 5].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 9th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On Pg. 1-5 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Glasgow, as modified in view of Cunningham, Saeed, and Arbabi fails to teach the limitations of amended claims 1, 9, and 17 for the following reasons:
Glasgow fails to teach moving the first and second transducers in the first direction towards the object.
Glasgow fails to teach transmitting the sonic pulses in the first direction
Cunningham, Saeed, and Arbabi fail to remedy the deficiencies of Arbabi
With respect to (1), the examiner agrees that Glasgow fails to teach the first and second transducers in a first direction towards the object, however Glasgow is not relied upon to teach the amended limitations. Saeed teaches moving the first and second transducers moving in a first direction towards the object at [0052] which describes that each time of flight sensor may emit ultrasonic signals which are reflected by forward-located features in a downhole environment to allow the mobile platform to estimate the width of the forward downhole environment and traverse objects such as an XN-Nipple.
With respect to (2) the examiner agrees that Glasgow does not teach the first and second transducers transmitting the sonic pulses only in the first direction towards the object, however Glasgow is not relied to teach these limitations. Saeed teaches the limitations regarding transmitting the sonic pulses in the first direction towards the object at [0052] which describes that each time of flight sensor may emit ultrasonic signals which are reflected by forward-located features in a downhole environment to allow the mobile platform to estimate the width of the forward downhole environment and traverse objects such as an XN-Nipple.
With respect to (3), the examiner respectfully disagrees that none of Cunningham, Saeed, or Arbabi teaches the amended limitations of claims 1, 9, and 17. As noted in the response to arguments with respect to (1) and (2), Saeed teaches these limitations at [0052]. It is the examiner’s interpretation that the cited portion of Saeed indicates that the ultrasonic time of flight sensors, which are attached to the moving platform as it traverses downhole, transmits ultrasonic time of flight signals ahead (downwardly) and receives echoes in order to calculate changes of width associated with downhole objects such as an XN-Nipple, which would require the mobile platform to retract its legs in order to successfully move through the downhole environment. Therefore the rejections of claims 1, 9, and 17 in view of Saeed, Glasgow, Cunningham and Arbabi under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
On pg. 5-13 of Applicant’s Arguments, Applicant’ Argues that due to the alleged allowability of claims 1, 9, and 17, the dependent claims are therefore in condition for allowance. As noted in the response to arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17, above, the rejections are maintained and therefore so are the rejections of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Manders et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11644441) which discloses methods and systems for acoustic surface imaging using time of flight
Luu et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 20210142515) which discloses techniques using acoustic devices to identify external apparatuses mounted to a tubular using time of flight measurements
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645