DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response filed 08/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 are cancelled. Claim 22 is added. Claims 4-22 are pending. The previous 112b rejection of claim 4 is withdrawn due to amendment. Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 4-22 are either unpersuasive or moot due to a new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment.
On page 3 of the remarks, applicant states that Loisel “measures remaining liquid with electrodes and foam height with a camera…primarily through conductivity and foam volume.” In response, the examiner notes that Loisel’s disclosure is not so limited. Loisel explicitly states that the electrode monitoring “enables to measure the volume of liquid present in the foam formed” (Col. 5, Lines 2-3) and that “the physical density of the foam…(volume of foam / volume of liquid ratio),” a calculation “preferably carried out automatically” (Col. 2, Lines 38-42). Thus Loisel pairs its to measurements and derives the liquid-in-foam and density metrics from the pair. Applicant’s mention of Loisel’s “bulk difference calculation” on page 3 of the remarks is the same or similar subtraction the amended claim recites. Lastly, the examiner notes that the grounds of rejection for claim 4 has changed. The combination of the prior art as a whole must be considered. The claimed invention need not be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore the aforementioned argument is both unpersuasive as set forth above and moot due to a new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment.
In response to applicant's argument, on page 4 of the remarks, that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument unpersuasive.
On page 4 of the remarks, applicant argues that examples and graphs of the instant specification show that unexpected and non-obvious results are obtained as a result of the claimed method. In response the examiner notes that this is rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection utilizing Guillerme. Still further, Loisel’s 1995 patent teaches real-time tracking, storing, computing, and displaying of foam volume, liquid in the foam, etc., as well as tracking the liquid-in-foam quantity from foam formation to its time-course changes. As a non-limiting example, Loisel (Col. 6, Lines 32-39) clearly teaches computing time-series curves of the quantity of liquid in the foam, the level of liquid, the volume of foam, and more. Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument unpersuasive.
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 of this title, 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 4-5, 7-10, 14-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loisel (US 5465610 A, prior art of record) in view of Huang et al. (US 9862882 B2, prior art of record) and further in view of Guillerme et al. (“Study of foam stability by video image analysis: relationship with the quantity of liquid in the foams”).Regarding claim 4:Loisel teaches a method for evaluating a foamer, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) combining (i) an aqueous phase (liquid - e.g., abstract), a hydrocarbon phase, or both an aqueous phase and a hydrocarbon phase in a predetermined proportion with (ii) a foamer (e.g., abstract) to obtain a liquid (e.g., Col. 1, Lines 7-10), (b) sparging the liquid with a gas under sparging conditions including a predetermined gas flow rate to create a foam from at least some of the liquid and at least some of the gas (Col. 3, Lines 42-61; Col. 5, Line 18; Col. 5, Lines 39-23); and (c) during or after the step of sparging, determining the amount of the liquid in the foam (e.g., Col. 4, Line 67 through Col. 5, Line 3), wherein the step of determining is performed one or more times (Col. 5, Lines 48-58)
Loisel fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the foamer is in a predetermined concentration in the liquid
the phase simulating well fluids
(c)(i) measuring a volume of the liquid remaining that is not in the foam (strongly suggested by Loisel in: Col. 4, Line 60 through Col. 5, Line 3; Col. 5, Lines 31-37; Col. 6, Lines 32-37)
(c)(ii) measuring a total volume of the liquid and the foam;
(c)(iii) calculating a difference between the total volume and the volume of the liquid remaining that is not in the foam to obtain the volume of the foam; and
(c)(iv) determining the amount of the liquid entrained in the foam by subtracting the measured volume of the liquid remaining that is not in the foam from the volume of the liquid before the step of spargingHuang teaches:
wherein the foamer is in a predetermined concentration in the liquid (Col. 11, Lines 10-67)
the phase simulating well fluids (e.g., Col. 11, Lines 26-30; Col. 9, Line 30 through Col. 10, Line 5)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a predetermined concentration in the liquid, as taught by Huang, in the method of Loisel, to allow for precise testing of various types and concentrations of foamers for comparison thereof.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use one or more of the aqueous phases of Huang in the method of Loisel to allow for the evaluating of various foamers in various liquids that are encountered in oil and gas production. Foaming agents and the solutions they are used in span a variety of use cases. As evidenced by Huang, foamer and foamer efficiency is important to evaluate for the field of oil and gas production. Specifically see Huang, Column 1, Lines 46-61.Guillerme teaches:
(c)(i) measuring a volume of the liquid remaining that is not in the foam (page 289 - “for measuring the quantity of liquid that was not in the foam”)
(c)(iv) determining the amount of the liquid entrained in the foam by subtracting the measured volume of the liquid remaining that is not in the foam from the volume of the liquid before the step of sparging (paragraph spanning pages 289-290)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the volume of liquid not remaining in the foam and use it along with the initial volume of liquid before sparging to determine the amount of liquid entrained in the foam, as taught by Guillerme, in the method of Loisel as it is an art-recognized equivalent means for determining the amount of liquid entrained in the foam and/or due to Loisel strongly suggesting or even implying these steps but failing to explicitly teach them. Specifically, Loisel explicitly teaches that the following is known/measured: the volume of the foam (e.g., Col. 2, Lines 34-42); the volume of the liquid used to form the foam (e.g., Col. 2, Lines 47-51); the volume of the liquid in the foam (e.g., Col. 2, Lines 34-42); and the density of the foam (e.g., Col. 2, Lines 34-42), which is the ratio of the volume of the foam to the volume of liquid entrained in the foam. Loisel even teaches (Col. 6, Lines 32-39) computing time-series curves of the quantity of liquid in the foam, the level of liquid, the volume of foam, and more. Guillerme is merely provided to expedite prosecution and for clarity of record by explicitly showing a formula where the change in non-foamed liquid (i.e., lo - l where lo is the initial quantity of liquid before sparging and l is the current quantity of liquid that is not in the foam).
Regarding the claim limitations of: “(c)(ii) measuring a total volume of the liquid and the foam”; and “(c)(iii) calculating a difference between the total volume and the volume of the liquid remaining that is not in the foam to obtain the volume of the foam”: this is implicitly taught by Loisel, met by the combination of Loisel and Guillerme, and/or rendered prima facie obvious due to the aforementioned teaches of Loisel and Guillerme. Loisel teaches (Col. 6, Lines 32-39) computing time-series curves of the quantity of liquid in the foam, the level of liquid, the volume of foam, and more. Loisel teaches measuring/determining: the volume of the foam (e.g., Col. 2, Lines 34-42); the volume of the liquid used to form the foam (e.g., Col. 2, Lines 47-51); the volume of the liquid in the foam (e.g., Col. 2, Lines 34-42); and the density of the foam (e.g., Col. 2, Lines 34-42), which is the ratio of the volume of the foam to the volume of liquid entrained in the foam. Guillerme teaches (paragraph spanning pages 289-290) measuring the initial quantity of liquid and continuously measuring the quantity of liquid that is not in the foam. Most importantly, the camera of Loisel records a height. A height is measured from a reference point (e.g., bottom of cylinder to the current level of foam). However, in the case of Loisel, there is the liquid level and foam top. The liquid level changes as the liquid is sparged into foam. A “foam height” that is referenced to a fixed or “assumed” liquid level would be incorrect since the liquid level changes. So, Loisel’s foam-height measurement can only be: foam top (total liquid + foam) - liquid surface (i.e., the remaining liquid). Regardless, even if a reference teaches measuring the liquid volume and measuring the foam volume, this is mathematically the same as, and empirically equivalent to, measuring a total liquid + foam volume and subtracting the liquid volume to obtain the foam volume. The test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding claim 5:Loisel, Huang, and Guillerme teach all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Loisel fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the aqueous phase is water, a synthetic water composition simulating water obtained from a well, or a sample of water obtained from a wellHuang teaches:
wherein the aqueous phase is water, a synthetic water composition simulating water obtained from a well, or a sample of water obtained from a well(e.g., Col. 11, Lines 26-30; Col. 9, Line 30 through Col. 10, Line 5)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use one or more of the aqueous phases of Huang in the method of Loisel to allow for the evaluating of various foamers in various liquids that are encountered in oil and gas production. Foaming agents and the solutions they are used in span a variety of use cases. As evidenced by Huang, foamer and foamer efficiency is important to evaluate for the field of oil and gas production. Specifically see Huang, Column 1, Lines 46-61.
Regarding claim 7:Loisel, Huang, and Guillerme teach all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Loisel fails to teach:
wherein the foamer is a hydrophilic foamer or an amphiphile foamerHuang teaches:
wherein the foamer is a hydrophilic foamer or an amphiphile foamer(The alcohol ether sulfonate foaming agents of Huang are amphiphilic surfactants, possessing both a hydrophobic alkyl chain R1 and a hydrophilic sulfonate head group -SO3M with ethylene oxide and propylene oxide units, as described by, for example, Formula I. Also see Formula II. Huang discloses a wide range of foamers meeting the instant claim limitations)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use one or more of the foamers of Huang in the method of Loisel to allow for the evaluating of various foamers in various liquids that are encountered in oil and gas production. Foaming agents and the solutions they are used in span a variety of use cases. As evidenced by Huang, foamer and foamer efficiency is important to evaluate for the field of oil and gas production.
Regarding claim 8:Loisel, Huang, and Guillerme teach all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Loisel also teaches:
wherein the gas is selected from the group consisting of air, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or any combination thereof in any proportion(e.g., Col. 3, Lines 43-56)
Regarding claim 9:Loisel, Huang, and Guillerme teach all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Loisel fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the step of sparging additionally comprises controlling the temperature of the liquid during the step of sparging(although Loisel does explicitly teach “various factors such as the concentration, the pH-acidity, the temperature and the production methods of the foam affect the foaming properties of the products in solution or in suspension”)Huang teaches:
wherein the step of sparging additionally comprises controlling the temperature of the liquid during the step of sparging (heading in Table 1 “room temperature” in view of Col. 11, Lines 11-25)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the temperature of the liquid, as taught by Huang, in the method of Loisel to increase the accuracy of the results by, at least partially, recreating the environment in which the foamer will be used, such as in the downhole oil and gas operations disclosed by Huang.
Regarding claim 10:Loisel, Huang, and Guillerme teach all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Loisel fails to teach:
wherein measuring the volume of the liquid remaining that is not in the foam and measuring the total volume of the liquid and the foam are performed using graduated markings on a vessel containing the liquid and the foamHuang teaches:
the entire liquid and foam are contained in a vessel using graduated markings for measurements (Col. 11, Lines 10-36)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the entire liquid and foam contained in a vessel using graduated markings for measurements, as taught by Huang, instead of using electrode-based volume measurement of Loisel to simplify the device and reduce cost.
Regarding claim 14:Loisel, Huang, and Guillerme teach all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Loisel also teaches:
over time during or after the step of sparging, recording with a camera the visual appearance of the foam as it changes over time(Col. 2, Lines 43-46)
Regarding claim 15:Loisel, Huang, and Guillerme teach all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Loisel fails to teach:
wherein the step of determining the mass or the amount of the liquid in the foam comprises the steps of: (a) collecting the foam to obtain a collected foam and any of the liquid dropped from the collected foam; and (b) measuring the amount of the collected foam and any of the liquid dropped from the collected foamHuang teaches:
wherein the step of determining the mass or the amount of the liquid in the foam comprises the steps of: (a) collecting the foam to obtain a collected foam and any of the liquid dropped from the collected foam; and (b) measuring the amount of the collected foam and any of the liquid dropped from the collected foam(Col. 11, Lines 11-37)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to collect and measure the mass of the foam, as taught by Huang, in the method of Loisel as it is an art-recognized equivalent method for determining an amount of liquid in a foam.
Regarding claim 16:Loisel, Huang, and Guillerme teach all the limitations of claim 15, as mentioned above.Loisel fails to teach:
wherein the step of collecting the foam additionally comprises cooling the foam to reduce any evaporation of the liquid entrained in the foam to the atmosphereHuang teaches:
wherein the step of collecting the foam additionally comprises cooling the foam to reduce any evaporation of the liquid in the foam to the atmosphere (Col. 11, Lines 11-37)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the condenser of Huang in the method of Loisel and Huang set forth in the claim 15 rejection above, to prevent evaporation of the liquid. Huang teaches temperatures as high as 190° F. At such elevated temperatures over 15+ minutes, the liquids in the foam may evaporate, leading to inaccurate results.
Regarding claim 17:Loisel, Huang, and Guillerme teach all the limitations of claim 16, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 16 rejection above, Huang teaches:
wherein cooling the foam is with a condenser (Col. 11, Lines 11-37)
Regarding claim 18:Loisel, Huang, and Guillerme teach all the limitations of claim 16, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 16 rejection above Loisel, Huang, and Guillerme teach:
additionally comprising the steps of: (a) over time during or after the step of sparging, recording the mass of the collected foam and any of the liquid dropped from the collected foam; and (b) analyzing the recorded masses using a central processing unit to determine the amounts of the liquid entrained in the collected foam over time(As set forth in the rejections of claims 1 and 16, Huang teaches the mass/amount measurements and Loisel teaches the amount of liquid in the foam is measured over time.)
Regarding claim 19:Loisel, Huang, and Guillerme teach all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Loisel also teaches or renders obvious:
additionally comprising the steps of: (a) during or after the step of sparging, determining the volume of the foam; and (b) based on the step of determining the amount of the liquid in the foam, determining the density of the foam(e.g., Col. 2, Lines 38-42; Col. 6, Lines 5-6)
Regarding claim 20:Loisel, Huang, and Guillerme teach all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Loisel either teaches or strongly suggests:
wherein the steps of combining, sparging, and determining the amount of the liquid entrained in the foam are steps of a discrete and separate test for the liquid and for the sparging conditions from another discrete and separate test for a different liquid or for different sparging conditions(e.g., Col. 6, Line 64 through Col. 7, Line 2)Huang explicitly teaches:
wherein the steps of combining, sparging, and determining the amount of the liquid in the foam are steps of a discrete and separate test for the liquid and for the sparging conditions from another discrete and separate test for a different liquid or for different sparging conditions(Col. 11, Table 2 and Lines 60-67)
One would find it obvious to repeat the method of Loisel and/or Huang on different products or under different conditions to test which product may be best for a specific use or environment.
Regarding claim 22:Loisel, Huang, and Guillerme teach all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Loisel also teaches:
wherein the step of sparging comprises sparging the liquid with the gas through a porous frit or sparger (e.g., claim 1; Col. 3, Lines 42-61) under controlled flow conditions (e.g., Col. 3, Lines 52-61) and without mechanical blending or agitation of the liquid (Loisel’s foam generation is solely due to the gas flow through the sintered element. There is no blender, stirrer, or other mechanical agitation device.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loisel (US 5465610 A, prior art of record) in view of Huang et al. (US 9862882 B2, prior art of record) and Guillerme et al. (“Study of foam stability by video image analysis: relationship with the quantity of liquid in the foams”) and further in view of Nguyen et al. (US 20120125620 A1, prior art of record).Regarding claim 6:Loisel, Huang, and Guillerme teach all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Loisel fails to teach:
wherein the hydrocarbon phase is kerosene, a hydrocarbon composition simulating a hydrocarbon obtained from a well, or a sample of a hydrocarbon obtained from a wellNguyen teaches:
wherein the hydrocarbon phase is kerosene, a hydrocarbon composition simulating a hydrocarbon obtained from a well, or a sample of a hydrocarbon obtained from a well(e.g., [0045])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use liquid composition of Nguyen in the method of Loisel to allow for the evaluating of various foamers in liquids that are encountered in oil and gas production. Foaming agents and the solutions they are used in span a variety of use cases. As evidenced by Huang and Nguyen, foamer and foamer efficiency is important to evaluate for the field of oil and gas production.
Claims 11-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loisel (US 5465610 A, prior art of record) in view of Huang et al. (US 9862882 B2, prior art of record) and Guillerme et al. (“Study of foam stability by video image analysis: relationship with the quantity of liquid in the foams”) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20090107234 A1, prior art of record).Regarding claim 11:Loisel, Huang, and Guillerme teach all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Loisel also teaches:
recording the volumes of the liquid entrained and other properties of the foam over time using a camera operatively connected to a central processing unit (Col. 2, Lines 43-46; Col. 4, Line 34 through Col. 5, Line 8)(i.e., Loisel monitors the foam using the camera and monitors the liquid using electrodes - Col. 4, Line 60 through Col. 5, Line 3)
analyzing the recorded volumes to determine the volume of the foam and the amount of liquid entrained in the foam over time and a density of the foam (e.g., Col. 2, Lines 27-42; Col. 6, Lines 5-6)Loisel or Loisel and Guillerme also teach or render obvious:
recording the total volume of the liquid and the foam using the camera (see claim 4 rejection above regarding the “total volume” and discussion regarding the camera foam height measurements)Loisel fails to explicitly teach:
recording the volume of the liquid remaining that is not in the foam using the cameraKim teaches:
determining liquid level using a camera (e.g., [0059]-[0060], FIGS. 5-6)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the camera to make liquid level / volume measurements, as taught by Kim, in the method of Loisel, as it is an art-recognized equivalent means for determining the level of a liquid. The examiner notes that the claim limitations that Loisel fails to explicitly teach are met upon combination with Kim. Specifically, the combination results in the device of Loisel being configured such that the height of the liquid may be seen through transparent column and the camera used to determine liquid levels / amounts instead of the electrodes 24. This is further reinforced by Huang (Col. 11, Lines 10-36).
Regarding claim 12:Loisel, Huang, Guillerme, and Kim teach all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.Loisel strongly suggests, but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein recording the volume of the liquid is with a graduated cylinder having graduated markings(FIG. 1 of Loisel appears to show the light source 29 have or indicating markings and Loisel teaches “the camera 28 can then be advantageously positioned on calibrated marks which enable to determine various foam heights in relation to the column used”; however, Loisel fails to explicitly a graduated cylinder having graduated markings)Huang and Kim teach:
wherein recording the volume of the liquid is with a graduated cylinder having graduated markings (e.g., Huang - Col. 11, Lines 12-25; Kim - FIGS. 3-5 and [0059]-[0060])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a graduated cylinder with graduated markings in the method of Loisel to allow the camera and processor to easily calculate the volume of liquid and/or foam, without needing to take into account the diameter of the column (see, e.g., Loisel - Col. 4, Lines 43-51).
Regarding claim 13:Loisel, Huang, Guillerme, and Kim teach all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.Loisel (as combined in the claim 11 rejection above), teaches:
graphically plotting the recorded volumes over time using the central processing unit operatively connected to a user interface(e.g., FIG. 3, element 3; Col. 6, Lines 30-52)
Regarding claim 21:Loisel, Huang, and Guillerme teach all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 4 rejection above, Loisel and Guillerme teach:
analyzing the recorded volumes to determine, one or more times, the volume of the foam (Loisel - e.g., Col. 2, Lines 47-51) and the amount of the liquid entrained in the foam over time (Loisel - e.g., Col. 2, Lines 47-51) by subtracting the measured volume of the liquid remaining that is not in the foam from the volume of the liquid before the step of sparging (paragraph spanning pages 289-290)Loisel fails to explicitly teach:
wherein steps (a)-(c) are performed with the liquid in a graduated cylinder having graduated markings positioned in a temperature-controlled bath; and wherein the step of determining in step (c) comprises:(i) recording, with a camera operatively connected to a central processing unit, over time during or after the step of sparging, (A) a volume of liquid remaining that is not in the foam and (B) a total volume of the liquid and the foam in the graduated cylinder using the graduated markings; and (ii) analyzing the recorded volumes using the central processing unit to determine, one or more times, the volume of the foam and the amount of the liquid entrained in the foam over time by subtracting the measured volume of the liquid remaining that is not in the foam from the volume of the liquid before the step of sparging(Loisel teaches a transparent column / cylinder and camera to track volume and also strongly suggests the cylinder has markings indicating level/volume - Col. 4, Line 58 through Col. 5, Line 5. Loisel monitors the foam using the camera and monitors the liquid using electrodes - Col. 4, Line 60 through Col. 5, Line 3. Loisel also teaches that “various factors such as the concentration, the pH-acidity, the temperature and the production methods of the foam affect the foaming properties of the products in solution or in suspension”.)Huang teaches:
the liquid in a graduated cylinder positioned in a temperature-controlled bath (heading in Table 1 “room temperature” in view of Col. 11, Lines 11-25)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the temperature of the liquid / use a temperature-controlled bath, as taught by Huang, in the method of Loisel to increase the accuracy of the results by, at least partially, recreating the environment in which the foamer will be used, such as in the downhole oil and gas operations disclosed by Huang.Kim teaches:
an apparatus in which a camera (205) is operatively connected to a main control part (201, central processing unit) via an image grabber (203), and the main control part determines a liquid level from images photographed against a staff gauge bearing graduated markings ([0026]-[0028]; [0059]-[0060]; claim 1. I.e., Kim teaches automatically determining a liquid level using a camera recording images of the liquid level relative to volume / amount markings.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the camera to make liquid level / volume measurements, as taught by Kim, in the method of Loisel, as it is an art-recognized equivalent means for determining the level of a liquid. The examiner notes that the claim limitations that Loisel fails to explicitly teach are met / rendered obvious upon combination with Kim. Specifically, the combination results in the device of Loisel being configured such that the height of the liquid may be seen through transparent column and the camera used to determine liquid levels / amounts instead of the electrodes 24 (Loisel already teaches monitoring the foam volume using the camera). This is further reinforced by Huang (Col. 11, Lines 10-36).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights