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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument, “Jaaskelainen does not disclose purging performed using an inert gas (e.g, nitrogen or argon gas), as generally claimed….. Replacing hydrogen therefore undermines that objective. In this sense, Jaaskelainen clearly teaches away from using any other gas… Alternatively, Jaaskelainen does describe using a carrier fluid to convey the optical fiber downhole, which is later purged with an inert gas (see, e.g., para. [0034]). However Jaaskelainen fails to disclose applying that inert gas "at a pressure" to relieve mechanical strain, as also claimed (see e.g. para [0031] of the present application). More broadly. the gas used to in Jaaskelainen is only used as part of a fiber optic deployment process. In contrast, the claimed process is specifically used to provide strain relief in a previously installed fiber optic fiber by using pressurized inert gas”, Examiner respectfully asserts that pars. 0029 and 0034 teach a flushing aka purging step with an inert gas. Inherently, pressure is applied to displace the isopropanol via flushing or purging, else the isopropanol would remain static in the conduit. Furthermore, the claim does not recite that the optical fiber is previously installed before purging with an inert gas. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 4, 7 and 8 under 5 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Michaelis et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2015/0378124 A1) in view of Jaaskelainen (U.S. PG Pub. # 2014/0363117 A1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaaskelainen (U.S. PG Pub. # 2014/0363117 A1).
In Re claims 1, 6 and 7, ‘117 teaches a method for relieving mechanical strain in an optical fiber (264, 1010) in a well bore, the method comprising the steps of:
(a)providing a conduit (1030) in the wellbore (par. 0034),
(ii)the conduit comprising a single leg (figs. 3, 7 or 10) including the optical fiber and a lower check valve (par. 0031 or 1040, par. 0034);
(b) purging the conduit with an inert gas which is applied at a pressure (par. 0034, as pressure is inherently required to purge the carrier fluid).
The cited embodiment is expressly silent to the optical fiber comprising at least one FBG.
The embodiments of pars. 0025, 0026, 0028, 0035 and 0039 teach that the optical fiber in the well bore is a FBG system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical fiber 264 or 1010 to be a FBG so as to allow for specific environmental measurements of well bores such as temperature to ensure optimum operation of the well bore thus creating a more versatile sensing system as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Alternatively, In Re claim 1 and 7, ‘117 teaches a method for relieving strain in an optical fiber (264, 1010) in a well bore, the method comprising the steps of:
(a)providing a conduit (1030) in the wellbore (par. 0034),
(i)the conduit comprising a pair of vertical legs (262, 264, par. 0032, 0036) connected by a turnaround section (par. 0032) connecting the bottom end of the vertical legs, wherein the optical fiber is deployed in one of the vertical legs of the conduit (figs. 2, 8 or 9);
(b)purging the conduit with a gas at a pressure to remove isopropanol (par. 0029, as pressure is inherent to remove the isopropanol via an inherently present source to apply the pressure of purging, pars. 0029, 0034).
‘117 is explicitly silent, in the cited embodiment, to the optical fiber comprising at least one FBG and the purging gas being an inert gas.
The embodiment of par. 0034 of ‘117 teaches using an inert gas to purge out a carrier fluid of isopropanol and the embodiments of pars. 0025, 0026, 0028, 0035 and 0039 teach that the optical fiber in the well bore is a FBG system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cited embodiment to use the inert gas of par. 0034 as the gas to purge out the carrier fluid of isopropanol so as to limit environmental effects on the optical fiber and for the optical fiber 264 or 1010 to be a FBG so as to allow for specific environmental measurements of well bores such as temperature to ensure optimum operation of the well bore thus creating a more versatile sensing system as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 3, ‘117 teaches wherein the conduit has a pair of vertical legs (262, 264, ar. 0032), and is purged with a gas in a first direction (par. 0055, 0056), and optionally repeated in the opposite direction.
In Re claim 5, ‘117 teaches a single leg as claimed (fig. 10).
In Re claim 6, ‘117 teaches a method of relieving strain in an optical fiber (1010) in a conduit (1030) in a well bore (pars. 0034, fig. 10), the conduit comprising a check valve (1040) disposed at or near a lower end of the conduit, the method comprising the step of purging the conduit with a gas (par. 0034).
In Re claim 9, ‘117 teaches vertical legs (262, 272, fig. 7) and a check valve (274) as claimed.
In Re claim 10, ‘117 teaches wherein the conduit comprises a single leg (1030, fig. 10).
Claims 1 – 4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaelis et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2015/0378124 A1) in view of Jaaskelainen (U.S. PG Pub. # 2014/0363117 A1).
In Re claims 1, 2 and 7, ‘124 teaches a method for relieving mechanical strain in an optical fiber in a well bore, the method comprising the steps of:
(a)providing a conduit (18) in the wellbore,
(i)the conduit comprising a pair of vertical legs (figs. 1 – 4) connected by a turnaround section (18a) connecting the bottom end of the vertical legs, wherein the optical fiber (12) is deployed in one of the vertical legs of the conduit; or
(ii)the conduit comprising a single leg including the optical fiber and a lower check valve;
(b)purging the conduit with an inert gas such as nitrogen using a source (par. 0017, 0019, 0022, 0034, as there is inherently a source to apply the gas).
‘124 is silent to a FBG as claimed.
‘117 teaches using FBG as a sensing system in a well bore to detect parameters such as temperature (par. 0036).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ‘124 to use a FBG in the optical fiber 12 so as to measure environmental factors of the well bore such as temperature to determine safe operating conditions of the well bore as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
In Re claim 3, ‘124 teaches wherein the conduit has a pair of vertical legs, and is purged with a gas in a first direction (par. 0034), and optionally repeated in the opposite direction.
In Re claim 4, ‘124 teaches wherein the first direction is into a non-fiber leg and up a fiber leg (pars. 0012, 0034).
In Re claim 8, ‘124 teaches wherein the conduit has a pair of vertical legs (18), and the source of purge gas is connected to both vertical legs (at least indirectly), such that the conduit may be purged with a gas in a first direction, and then purged again in the opposite direction (par. 0034).
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.
/CHAD H SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874