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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figures 2-3, 5-8 and 10: Lines, numbers and letters not uniformly thick and well defined, clean, durable, and black (poor line quality).
The text within the Figures is blurry.
Figures 8 and 10: Numbers and reference characters not plain and legible. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p).
The text within some of the Figures is too blurry and small.
Figures 5-8 and 10: Numbers, letters, and reference characters must be at least .32 cm (1/8 inch) in height. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(3).
The text within the Figures are too small, which makes it difficult to read.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0004], line 5: The term – retraining – should replace the term “retrain.”
Paragraph [0006], line 3: The term -- rhodamine dye – should replace the term “Rhodamine Dye” as this term is not a proper noun.
Paragraph [0006], line 7: The term – xenon – should replace the term “Xenon” as this term is not a proper noun.
Paragraph [0018], line 4: The abbreviation should be spelled out the first time it appears within the specification so as to avoid any confusion as to what the abbreviation represents.
Paragraph [0037], line 9: The term – downgradient – should replace the term “down gradient”. The term has been written three different ways in this specification including a hyphen between the two terms.
Paragraph [0039], line 2: The phrase “from the” should be deleted.
Paragraph [0047], line 2: The term – at – or – to – should be inserted after the term “added.”
Paragraph [0049], line 1: The term – downgradient – should replace the term “down gradient”. The term has been written three different ways in this specification including a hyphen between the two terms.
Paragraph [0056], lines 2 and 4: A -- comma – should be inserted prior to each occurrence of the term “such.”
Paragraph [0066], line 4: The term – predict – should replace the term “predicted.”
Paragraph [0070], line 10: The term – to – should replace the term “for”; or the term – creating – should replace the term “create.”
Paragraph [0076], line 2: The term – downgradient – should replace the term “down gradient”. The term has been written three different ways in this specification including a hyphen between the two terms.
Paragraph [0081], line 3: The numeral – 4 – should replace the numeral “3.”
Paragraph [0090], line 6: The term – downgradient – should replace the term “down-gradient”. The term has been written three different ways in this specification including a space between the two terms. Consistency in the presentation of terms should be maintained.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 2, claim line 10: The abbreviation SCADA should be spelled out the first time in appears within the claim, so that the reader is clear what the abbreviation represents.
Re claim 4, claim line 3: The term – tracer solution – should replace the term “it” so as to avoid any potential confusion.
Re claim 12, claim line 1: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the functionality of the system.
Re claim 13, claim line 10: The abbreviation SCADA should be spelled out the first time in appears within the claim, so that the reader is clear what the abbreviation represents.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Independent claims 1 and 12 recite that a predicted concentration value is determined by a model; however, the specification fails to disclose what the model is or what variables are used to generate the model. The specification broadly recites use of a model; but, the specification fails to provide working examples or any specific details associated with this model. It is unclear if one of ordinary in the art can provide a model from the disclosure and whether this particular model is one contemplated by the inventor. In light of the Wands factors, such as the amount of direction provided by the inventor, or the existence of working examples, or the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure, the Examiner deems that claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
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 4-5 and 15-16 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.
Re claim 4, claim line 1: Is this “a first well” the same first well as the one previously recited in claim 1, claim line 3? How can there be multiple first wells?
Re claim 4, claim line 2: Is this “a second well” the same second well as the one previously recited in claim 1, claim line 7? How can there be multiple second wells?
Re claim 5, claim line 1: Is this “a first well” the same first well as the one previously recited in claim 1, claim line 3? How can there be multiple first wells?
Re claim 15, claim line 1: Is this “a first well” the same first well as the one previously recited in claim 12, claim line 3? How can there be multiple first wells?
Re claim 15, claim line 2: Is this “a second well” the same second well as the one previously recited in claim 12, claim line 6? How can there be multiple second wells?
Re claim 16, claim line 1: Is this “a first well” the same first well as the one previously recited in claim 12, claim line 3? How can there be multiple first wells?
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art was not relied upon to reject claims 1-20 because the prior art of record fails to teach and/or make obvious the following:
Claims 1-11: Providing a method for testing a tracer solution in a water supply using wellfield sites comprising: determining an actual value of the tracer solution collected at a second well, wherein the second well is a monitoring well; and comparing a difference between the tracer solution added at the first well and the actual value of the tracer solution collected at the second well, wherein the difference is compared to a predicted concentration value determined by a model in combination with all of the remaining limitations of the claim.
Claims 12-20: Providing a system for testing a tracer solution in a water supply using wellfield sites comprising a device to: determine an actual value of the tracer solution collected at a second well, wherein the second well is a monitoring well; and compare a difference between the tracer solution added at the first well and the actual value of the tracer solution collected at the second well, wherein the difference is compared to a predicted concentration value determined by a model in combination with all of the remaining limitations of the claim.
The closest prior art, US 9835024, discloses an analysis method of inter-well tracer test comprising injecting tracer into a first well, and interpreting the tracer test using a mathematical model. The method does not expressly disclose comparing a difference between the tracer solution added at the first well and the actual value of the tracer solution collected at the second well, wherein the difference is compared to a predicted concentration value determined by a model.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art disclose various processes for introducing tracer solutions into a formation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL SEAN LARKIN whose telephone number is 571-272-2198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 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.
/DANIEL S LARKIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855