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
Examiner acknowledges the amendment filed 28 November 2025 wherein: claims 1 and 3 are amended; claims 1-3 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (page 5, first line through page 7, last line), filed 28 November 2025, have been fully considered.
Examiner acknowledges the prior drawing and specification objections have been overcome by amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 rejections of claims 1-3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 § U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim 3
Claim 3 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “apparatus” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1 and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–-----103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103) 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.
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 C.F.R. § 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 3
Claims 1 and 3 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Jones (US 2003/0155121 A1) in view of Bissonnette (US 2009/0194275 A1).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, the preamble recitation “for compensated formation evaluation” does not limit the structure of the claimed apparatus because no limitations in the body of the claim are directed to compensation, a formation, or evaluation. The preamble recitation is therefore merely a statement of intended use that results in no structural difference, is not considered a limitation, and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02.
Jones discloses an apparatus comprising:
an outer housing (14) (¶¶ 34-43; Figs. 1-3);
an inner housing (31) disposed within the outer housing 14);
an emitter (30) disposed within the inner housing (31);
a first sensor (long spaced detector 50) disposed within the inner housing (31);
a first window (36) in the outer housing (14), positioned about the emitter (30), to permit signals from the emitter (30) to pass out of the outer housing (14);
a second window (54) in the outer housing (14), positioned about the first sensor (50), to permit signals to reach the first sensor (50) from out of the outer housing (14); and
a second sensor (short spaced detector 40) disposed within the inner housing (31) (¶¶ 34-43; Figs. 1-3).
Jones does not expressly disclose a fluid annulus between the outer housing and the inner housing.
Bissonnette discloses a well-logging tool (¶¶ 2-8) comprising a fluid annulus (46) between an outer housing (38) and an inner housing (36; ¶¶ 30-32, 40; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have modified the invention of Jones in view of the teachings of Bissonnette to include a fluid annulus between the outer housing and the inner housing.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Bissonnette of achieving desired fluid control during well logging (Bissonnette, ¶¶ 2-8, 30-32, 40).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, the preamble recitation “for formation evaluation to compensate for noise” does not limit the structure of the claimed apparatus or limit a claimed method step because no limitations in the body of the claim are directed to compensation, a formation, or evaluation. The preamble recitation is therefore merely a statement of intended use that results in no structural or manipulative difference, is not considered a limitation, and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02.
Jones modified teaches a method for configuring the apparatus of claim 1, comprising (element labels in Jones): positioning a sensor (40 or 50) in an inner housing (31) of the apparatus within a shielded portion of an outer housing (14) of the apparatus (i.e., the stabilizer 14 is inherently shielding at all portions except for low Z windows 36, 38, and 54; the sensors 40 and 50 are within these portions (Jones, ¶¶ 34-43; Figs. 1-3).
Claim 2
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Bissonnette as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taylor (US 4,641,028 A).
Regarding claim 2, Jones modified teaches a method for use of the apparatus of claim 1, comprising: recording measurements from the first sensor (50) and the second sensor (40) (Jones, ¶¶ 34-43).
Jones modified does not expressly disclose adjusting a measurement of the first sensor using a second measurement of the second sensor.
Taylor discloses an apparatus comprising an emitter (11), a first source (long spaced detector 18), and a second source (short spaced detector 17), wherein a method for use of the apparatus comprises recording measurements (col. 2, l. 44 - col. 3, l. 30; col. 4, ll. 23-49: “The long spaced curve output sensitivity value is multiplied by the ratio 2.0 to give a new value of the output sensitivity of the long spaced curve, which is comparable to the sensitivity of the short spaced curve … By establishing the ratio of 2.00 to 1, and adjusting the output sensitivity (increasing) of the long spaced curve 38', the new value of the output sensitivity of the long spaced curve 38' is comparable with the sensitivity of the short spaced curve 39. Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Jones in view of the teachings of Taylor to include adjusting a measurement of the first sensor using a second measurement of the second sensor.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Taylor of matching sensitivities of the detectors (Taylor: col. 4, ll. 23-49).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ellis (US 4,048,495 A) discloses a technique for determining the density of an earth formation with a logging sonde including a gamma ray source and two gamma ray detectors spaced at different distances from the source, wherein the count rate of the short-spaced detector is measured in two energy ranges covering back-scattered gamma rays which have undergone relatively low and high attenuations respectively, a first density correction is determined from the difference between the apparent density derived from the count rate of the long-spaced detector and the density derived from the count rate of the short-spaced detector in the energy range covering gamma rays with relatively low attenuation, a second density correction is determined from the difference between the densities derived from the two short-spaced detectors' count rates, and these two density corrections are added to the apparent density to give the true formation density (Abstract).
Givens (US 4,180,727 A) discloses a gamma-gamma density logging tool employs a gamma-ray source and a pair of gamma-ray detectors, wherein a first detector receives only natural gamma rays from the formations surrounding the borehole, a second detector receives both natural gamma rays and scattered gamma rays from the formations surrounding the borehole, and the count rate from the second detector is modified by the count rate of the first detector to provide for a density measurement that is corrected for the effects of natural gamma radiation from radioactive ore-bearing zones in the formations (Abstract).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-2995. 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.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884