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
The amendment filled on 11/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the claim objection of Claims 2-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) of Claims 14-15 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/18/2025, with respect of 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Further, Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly amended limitations in claim 1 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments under 35 U.S.C § 103:
In pages 6-7, applicant argues that “With regards to Myers, Applicant has removed the term "for use" from claim 1. As explained in paragraph [0041] of Myers, An in situ measurement tool could use a caliper or other similar device to move the tool against the side of the well bore and interrogate a specific area. In contrast, the present invention need not contact the geological surface, thereby enabling the apparatus to move along the hole at very fast speeds (typically up to between 2 to 4 m/s), as explained in paragraph [0007] of the specification as filed. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the present invention is not obvious.”.
In pages 7-8, applicant argues that “Palmer discloses a reflector 268A for reflecting reflected light 1302A from the geological surface. Claim 1 has been amended to clarify that the incident light is from the light source. However, the reflector 268A does not reflect incident light 1314 from the light source 1313 onto the geological surface, rather the incident light 1314 passes through the frosted filter 1315 directly onto the geological surface (col. 9, lines 40-42). Indeed, the second mirror 268B (col. 9, lines 52-54) caps the light 1313 preventing the incident light from reaching the reflector 268A before being incident on the geological surface. Accordingly, Palmer neither discloses nor suggests a reflector for reflecting incident light from the light source onto the geological surface. In simple terms, Palmer discloses two mirrors 268A, 268B for serially reflecting the reflected light from the geological surface only, whereas the present invention uses only a single reflector reflecting both the incident and the reflected light. Accordingly, we respectfully submit that claim 1 is further not obvious as none of the prior art, including Myers and Palmer, discloses nor suggests such a feature.
In page 8, applicant argues that “Similarly, Bucholtz discloses two paraboloidal mirrors 37, 39 (Fig. 3A) for reflecting respective incident and the reflected light, whereas the present invention uses the same reflector reflecting both the incident and the reflected light as claimed. Accordingly, we respectfully submit that claim 1 is further not obvious. In any event, Bucholtz includes a cone penetrometer tube 29 which penetrates the soil in use. In contrast, claim 1 defines that the apparatus need not contact the geological surface being scanned. As explained in paragraph [0028] of the present application, the contactless operation of the apparatus results in extremely fast scanning speeds, well in excess of Bucholtz, when the apparatus is moved along the geological surface at very fast speeds (typically up to between 2 - 4 m/sec). Accordingly, the present invention is further not obvious. In addition, Bucholtz penetrates the surface to scan, thereby forming an even surface. Accordingly, the scanned signal is attained over a fixed focal length, which would not work for rapid scanning down an uneven blasthole of the preferred embodiment where data is collected from a variable distance to the target (e.g. from close 'near contact' to > 100 mm). The ability to obtain data over this variable range without contact is a significant step forward from the teachings of Bucholtz. Accordingly, we respectfully submit that claim 1 is further not obvious and is allowable over the prior art.”.
In page 9, applicant argues that “with regard to claim 3, the claim has been amended to recite that the reflector includes a sole mirror coincidently reflecting the incident light and the reflected light. Palmer does not teach a sole mirror, and does not teach coincidence of the incident light and the reflected light. Accordingly, we respectfully submit that claim 3 is further not obvious.
In page 9, applicant argues that “with regard to claim 4, the claim has been amended to recite that the mirror is oriented to a sole side of the geological surface, whereas the mirror 268A of Palmer is oriented to both sides of the geological surface. Accordingly, we respectfully submit that claim 4 is further not obvious.”.
In page 9, applicant argues that “with regard to claim 8, Bucholtz discloses that it is the focusing lens 45 (col. 6, lines35 - 40), and not the mirror 39 which focuses the reflected light. The present invention need not have a lens at all. Accordingly, we respectfully submit that claim 8 is further not obvious.”.
In page 9, applicant argues that “with regard to claim 11, Myers teaches that the horizontal direction of light from the light source (i.e. spot 640) or internal optic fibre is in the same horizontal direction as light from the wall, and not transverse like the present invention where the direction is upright or substantially vertical (see Fig. 1 of present specification). Accordingly, we respectfully submit that claim 11 is further not obvious.
In page 10, applicant argues that “with regard to claim 17, the light source of Bucholtz does not transmit light axially along the geological surface along which the apparatus is moved, rather it is transverse in the orthogonal hole created by penetration. Accordingly, we respectfully submit that claim 17 is further not obvious.”.
Examiner response to arguments under 35 U.S.C § 103:
In response to applicant’s arguments mention above regarding (a) , the examiner respectfully disagrees since as shown in Figs 8-9, the apparatus 600 scanning the surface of the wellbore wall 514 without any contact to the wall. Additionally, the citation of “An in situ measurement tool could use a caliper or other similar device to move the tool against the side of the well bore and interrogate a specific area”, is one of the multiples options/embodiments cited in paragraph [0041] wherein the measurement tool could use a caliper to move the tool against the side of the well bore and interrogate a specific area. However, this citation above “could use” do not preclude a device scanning the geological surface that need not contact the geological surface as cited in paragraph [0041] of Myers. Moreover, paragraph [0041], comprises additional embodiments that also need not contact of the wall such as “The in-situ measurement tool could use a laser scanning and optical technique to translate the laser across the sidewall surface, Additionally, in yet another option, the in-situ measurement tool could be a fiber optic conveyed system where, for example, a probe is located at the end of the fiber optic and part or all of the remaining components of the Raman spectrometer or non-Raman technology is at the surface. An example of such an embodiment is depicted in FIG. 9. FIG. 9 includes in-situ measurement system 600. Probe 680 is conveyed via fiber optic cable 690 into wellbore 510 to formation of interest 610 along helical path 630.”.
Therefore, Myers in Figs. 8-9 and in paragraph [0041], cited multiple embodiments where the apparatus scan geological surface and need not contact the geological surface.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (thereby enabling the apparatus to move along the hole at very fast speeds (typically up to between 2 to 4 m/s), as explained in paragraph [0007] of the specification as filed) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
In response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly amended limitations as argued above regarding (b, d, e, f, g, h) 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.
In response to applicant’s arguments mention above regarding (c), the examiner respectfully disagrees since as shown in Fig. 3A and/or also in Fig. 4, the reflector (Fig. 3, the combination of elements 37 + 39) that is a transmission/collection optics 23, perform the function of reflecting the incident light from the light source 35 and to reflecting reflected light form the sample, [col. 6, lines 30-41]. Additionally, as shown in Fig. 7 a light source 21c + 21D emit light to the reflector 59 (the combination of elements 59) and the reflector reflect light onto the sample and reflect reflected light from the sample, [col. 7, lines 63-67]- [col8, lines 1-2]. Moreover, as a Phosita comprehend a reflector can comprise multiple structures organized/located/functioning as one and/or a reflector can comprise multiple reflective surfaces. Therefore the combination of elements 37 + 39 and/or 59 + 59 is interpreted as a reflector.
Even though the Examiner agree with the applicant about the device of Bucholtz have contact with the soil, however Applicant arguments are focused in the limitation “an apparatus that need not contact the geological surface” even though the first reference Myers et al. in a 103 rejection previously discloses the limitation in paragraph [0041] as explained above in section III. Moreover Bucholtz is used to teach the reflector. Therefore the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983). It is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”; and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973). Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures. Thus, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Also, the examiner submits that 3nd reference Bucholtz does not change the principle of operation of the primary reference, Myers or renders the reference inoperable for its intended purpose. See MPEP § 2143.01.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (thereby enabling the apparatus to move along the hole at very fast speeds (typically up to between 2 to 4 m/s), as explained in paragraph [0007] of the specification as filed; Bucholtz penetrates the surface to scan, thereby forming an even surface. Accordingly, the scanned signal is attained over a fixed focal length, which would not work for rapid scanning down an uneven blasthole of the preferred embodiment where data is collected from a variable distance to the target (e.g. from close 'near contact' to > 100 mm). The ability to obtain data over this variable range without contact is a significant step forward from the teachings of Bucholtz) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). Also, the Applicant fail to provide a citation where Bucholtz discloses forming even surfaces.
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 3-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding Claims 3-4, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. More specifically, the Examiner notes that in claim 3 line 2 the element “the reflector includes a sole mirror” and in claim 4, lines 2-3 “the mirror is obliquely oriented to a sole side of the geological surface”, are not described in the Specification so as to provide the structure or equivalents thereof that perform the corresponding function of the claims identified in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Even though the specification describe that the reflector may comprise a mirror, ([0008], specification). The specification do not further describe a mirror as a “sole mirror” and/or that the reflector cannot comprise another structure as a mirror or equivalent.
Regarding claim 4, Even though the specification describe that the mirror 110 is obliquely oriented to the downwardly extending wall 102” ([0028], specification). The specification do not further describe “the mirror is obliquely oriented to a sole side of the geological surface”, and/or the mirror is oriented to a single side of the geological surface or equivalent.
Therefore, the Specification lacks proper written description support for such limitation in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 5-8, the claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement since they are dependents of claim 3, and, thus, they all carry the same written description deficiency as that of their parent claim.
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, 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 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers et al. (US 2017/0329045 A1, included in IDS on 11/10/2023), hereafter Myers, in view of Palmer et al. (US 10,101,486 B1, included in IDS on 11/10/2023), hereafter Palmer and further in view of Bucholtz et al. (US 5,739,536 A, included in IDS on 11/10/2023), hereafter Bucholtz.
Regarding claim 1, Myers teaches a geological system (Figs. 8-9) including (the term “including” is interpreted as “comprising”):
an apparatus (Figs. 8-9 element 600) for use when scanning an uneven geological surface and that need not contact the geological surface, (the in situ measurement tool use a laser scanning device analyzing the sidewall of helical path of a borehole therefore do not need to contact the surface when scanning since uses an optical technique, also paragraph 41 comprise multiple embodiments wherein the apparatus scan geological surface and need not contact the geological surface. [0041]). the apparatus including:
a light source for providing light, (Figs. 8-9 element 600 comprise a laser scanner that generate an analyzer spot 640 as shown in Fig. 9, [0041]); and
optical fibre (Figs. 8-9 element 650 + 690) for receiving the reflected light (the device comprise a probe at the end of the fiber optic that received light and guide the light to the spectrometer, [0041]).
Even though Myers teaches a Fiber optic conveyed system for moving the apparatus along the uneven geological surface during scanning, [0041] and an optical fiber, [0041], Myers fail to teach a reflector for reflecting incident light from the light source onto the geological surface, and for reflecting reflected light from the geological surface; and optical fibre for receiving the reflected light from the reflector; and a motorized apparatus for moving the apparatus along the uneven geological surface during scanning.
However, Palmer related to optical measuring system and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches a motorized apparatus for moving the apparatus along the uneven geological surface during scanning, (“a borehole imaging system 200 as described herein may include one or more imaging modules 260 supported by a cable 258, magnetic coupling, drill string, or other adjustable coupling/ positioning mechanism” [Col. 4, lines 9-13] and a controllable and retractable positioning mechanism (comprising a cable 258 or drill string 1624, e.g.) configured to move the housing 1310, 1410 (through a range of positions) within the first borehole; [Col. 23, lines 57-60]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Myers by including, a motorized apparatus for moving the apparatus along the uneven geological surface during scanning (as taught by Palmer) for several advantages such as: the device is configured to obtain panoramic interior image data of the side wall of the borehole by receiving light from the mirror allows to generate an image with substantially no refractive distortion (due to not passing through a magnification/reduction lens) thus increase the accuracy of the device, ([Col. 9 , lines 8-22], Palmer).
Myers and Palmer still lack to teach a reflector for reflecting incident light from the light source onto the geological surface, and for reflecting reflected light from the geological surface, and optical fibre for receiving the reflected light from the reflector.
Bucholtz related to optical measurement and thus form the same field of endeavor teaches a reflector (Fig. 3A combination of element 37 + 39 AND/OR Fig. 7 combination of elements 59 + 59, as a Phosita comprehend since a reflector can comprise multiple structures organized/located/functioning as one and/or a reflector can comprise multiple reflective surfaces and as show in Fig. 3a and 7. Therefore the combination of elements 37 + 39 and/or 59 + 59 is interpreted as a reflector) for reflecting incident light from the light source (Fig. 3A element 35 and Fig. 7 element 21C) onto the geological surface (Fig. 7 element 57), and for reflecting reflected light from the geological surface (57), (as shows in Fig. 7, the reflector 59 reflect light from the light source 21C, and the reflector 59 reflect light from the soil 57, [col. 7, lines 64-67]-[col. 8, lines 1-3]) and optical fibre (Fig. 7 element 25) for receiving the reflected light from the reflector (59 + 59), ( as shown in Fig. 7, the optical fiber 25 received light from the reflector 59).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Myers by including a reflector for reflecting incident light from the light source onto the geological surface, and for reflecting reflected light from the geological surface, and optical fibre for receiving the reflected light from the reflector (as taught by Bucholtz) for several advantages such as: the mirror allows to efficiently accomplish the dual task of illuminating the sample and collecting the scattered radiation thus increase the versability and efficiency of the device, ([Col. 4, Lines 1-5], Bucholtz).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 7-9, Myers in the combination outline above teaches the geological system.
Myers fail to teach:
(claim 3) wherein the reflector includes a sole mirror coincidently reflecting the incident light and reflected light.
(claim 4) wherein the mirror is obliquely oriented to a sole side of the geological surface.
(claim 5) wherein the mirror includes a concave, spherical, parabolic or elliptical mirror.
(claim 7) wherein the mirror includes an optical mirror.
(claim 8) wherein the mirror focuses the reflected light onto, or proximal to, the optical fibre..
(claim 9) wherein the apparatus includes a window through which the incident and reflected light passes.
Bucholtz further teaches:
(claim 3) wherein the reflector (Fig. 7 combination of elements 59) includes a sole mirror coincidently reflecting the incident light and the reflecting light (the reflector the combination of elements (59 + 59) includes “a sole mirror” that is interpreted as a singular structure. However since the combination of elements 59 is interpreted as a mirror since elements 59 + 59 are organized/located/functioning as one therefore are interpreted as one mirror structure “a sole mirror”, [col. 7, lines 64-67]-[col. 8, lines 1-3]). Additionally, it is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.
(claim 4) wherein the mirror is obliquely oriented to the a sole side of the geological surface, (as shown in Fig. 7 the surface of reflector the 59 “reflecting surface” is obliquely oriented to the soil 57). Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
(claim 5) wherein the mirror (Fig. 7 combination of elements 59) includes a concave, spherical, parabolic or elliptical mirror, [col. 7, lines 64-67]-[col. 8, lines 1-3])
(claim 7) wherein the mirror includes an optical mirror, (the reflector 59 that comprise the mirror surface is used as part of a device for spectrometric analysis therefore it is inherent that the mirror is an optical mirror, [Col. 4, lines 59-67]).
(claim 8) wherein the mirror (Fig. 7 combination of elements 59) focuses the reflected light onto, or proximal to, the optical fibre (Fig. 7 element 25), [col. 7, lines 46-56] and [col. 7, lines 64-67]-[col. 8, lines 1-3]).
(claim 9) wherein the apparatus includes a window (Fig. 1 element 31) through which the incident and reflected light passes, [col. 5, lines 19-25], [col. 6, lines 30-41].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Myers by including wherein the reflector includes a mirror, wherein the mirror focuses the reflected light onto, or proximal to, the optical fibre, wherein the mirror is obliquely oriented to the geological surface, wherein the mirror includes a concave, spherical, parabolic or elliptical mirror, wherein the mirror includes an optical mirror, wherein the mirror focuses the reflected light, wherein the apparatus includes a window through which the incident and reflected light passes (as taught by Bucholtz) for several advantages such as: the mirror allows to efficiently accomplish the dual task of illuminating the sample and collecting the scattered radiation thus increase the versability and efficiency of the device, ([Col. 4, Lines 1-5], Bucholtz).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 15-18, Myers in the combination outline above teaches the geological system as claimed in claim 1.
Myers fail to teach:
(claim 11) the direction of light from the light source and/or to the optical fibre is transverse the direction of light from the wall
(claim 12) wherein the optical fibre means includes an optical fibre bundle.
(claim 15) wherein the light source includes another reflector, preferably being concave, elliptical, spherical or parabolic.
(claim 16) wherein the light source has a focal point before the reflector,
(claim 17) wherein the light source transmits light axially along a hole the geological surface along which the apparatus is moved, the geological surface being a hole.
(claim 18) wherein the apparatus includes an environmentally sealed housing for housing the light source, reflector and the optical fiber.
However, Palmer further teaches:
(claim 18) wherein the apparatus includes an environmentally sealed housing (Fig. 13 element 1310) for housing the light source (Fig. 13 element 1313) , reflector (reflector 268A, [Col. 9, lines 8-22]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Myers by including wherein the apparatus includes an environmentally sealed housing for housing the light source and reflector (as taught by Palmer) for several advantages such as: allows to generate a barrier against external factors that could damage or compromise the device's sensitive internal components, thus increase the durability of the device.
Myers and Palmer still lack to teach:
(claim 11) the direction of light from the light source and/or to the optical fibre is transverse the direction of light from the wall.
(claim 12) wherein the optical fibre means includes an optical fibre bundle.
(claim 15) wherein the light source includes another reflector, preferably being concave, elliptical, spherical or parabolic.
(claim 16) wherein the light source has a focal point before the reflector,
(claim 17) wherein the light source transmits light axially along a hole the geological surface along which the apparatus is moved, the geological surface being a hole.
(claim 18) wherein the apparatus includes an housing for housing the optical fibre.
However, Bucholtz further teaches:
(claim 11) the direction of light from the light source (Fig. 7 element 21C) and/or to the optical fibre (Fig. 7 element 25) is transverse the direction of light from the wall (Fig. 7 element 57), (as shown in Fig. 7).
(claim 12) wherein the optical fibre (Fig. 7 element 25) includes an optical fibre bundle, [Col. 4, lines 25-32].
(claim 15) wherein the light source (Fig. 7 element 21C) includes another reflector, (Fig. 7 element 21D) being concave, elliptical, spherical or parabolic, [col. 7, lines 64-67]-[col. 8, lines 1-3]).
(claim 16) wherein the light source has a focal point before the reflector, ( as shown in Fig. 2A that illustrate a light source configuration of the device in Fig. 3A, the light source 21A (Fig. 2A) is located in the focal point of the mirror 21B. Therefore, light generated by the light source 21A would be reflected by the mirror 21b to the focal point “location of the light source” before irradiate the reflector (37 + 39 + 45), [Col. 5, lines 40-44], [Col. 6, lines 26-29]).
(claim 17) wherein the light source transmits light axially along a hole the geological surface along which the apparatus is moved, the geological surface being a hole (as shown in Fig. 7 light generated by the light source 21C reflected by the spherical cavity 21D transmit light axially along the hole in which the apparatus is moved inside the hole, [Col. 5, Lines 10-18], [Col. 6, lines 30-41], [col. 7, lines 64-67]-[col. 8, lines 1-3]).
(claim 18) wherein the apparatus includes an housing (Fig. 1 element 29) for housing the optical fibre, (Fig. 1 element 25), [Col. 6, lines 30-41]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Myers by including the direction of light from the light source and/or to the optical fibre is transverse the direction of light from the wall, wherein the optical fibre means includes an optical fibre bundle, wherein the light source includes another reflector, preferably being concave, elliptical, spherical or parabolic, wherein the light source has a focal point before the reflector, wherein the light source transmits light axially along a hole the geological surface along which the apparatus is moved, the geological surface being a hole, wherein the apparatus includes an housing for housing the optical fibre (as taught by Bucholtz) for several advantages such as: the device allows to perform remote in-situ fiber optic IR spectroscopy and also allow to identify the presence of individual chemicals, including water, from analysis of the IR spectrum obtained. ([Col. 4, Lines 1-5], Bucholtz).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers in view of Palmer and Bucholtz and further in view of Koh et al. (US 2024/0096092 A1), hereafter Koh.
Regarding claim 2, Myers in the combination outline above teaches the geological system as claimed in claim 1.
Myers further teaches wherein the apparatus does not require physical sampling of material along a hole, and instead moves along the hole whilst obtaining hyperspectral data, (the device 600 moves along the hole 514 as scan the wall “514 + 630” by in-situ measurement to generate hyperspectral mapping, [0041, 0043]. Therefore, device does not require physical sampling as it measure the wall of the hole).
However the modified device of Myers is silent about obtaining hyperspectral radiometric data.
Koh related to optical measuring system and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches obtaining hyperspectral radiometric data, [0096].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Myers by including obtaining hyperspectral radiometric data (as taught by Koh) for several advantages such as: allowing to transform raw DN values into physical radiance units and then to radiance, thus increase the accuracy of the measurement, ([0096], Koh). The hyperspectral radiometric data allows to identifying and characterizing materials based on their physical and chemical properties and also to provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of objects and environments than conventional imaging techniques, leading to a wide range of analytical, monitoring, and decision-making capabilities.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers in view of Palmer and Bucholtz and further in view of Firmin et al. (US 2014/0092235), hereafter Firmin.
Regarding claim 6, Myers in the combination outline above teaches the geological system as claimed in claim 3, wherein a beam of the incident light departs from the mirror (Fig. 7), to the geological surface, (as shown in Fig. 7 the light beam departs form the mirror 56 to the soil, [col. 7, lines 64-67]-[col. 8, lines 1-3], Bucholtz).
The modified device of Myers fail to teach the incident light diverges from the mirror to the surface.
However, Firmin related to optical measurement system and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches the incident light diverges from the mirror to the surface, ( the device comprise a divergent reflector 23 that diverge the light generated by the light source 20, [0044].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Myers by including the incident light diverges from the mirror to the surface (as taught by Firmin) for several advantages such as: the mirror orientation is beneficially placed within the outer perimeter of the field of view of camera to give a visual indication of the low side of a non-vertical well bore thus increase the efficiency of the device, ([0048], Firmin).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers in view of Palmer and Bucholtz and further in view of Spartz et al. (US 2019/0017873 A1), hereafter Wilkins.
Regarding claim 10, Myers in the combination outline above teaches the geological system as claimed in claim 9.
The modified device of Myers fail to teach wherein the window includes infra-red (IR) grade fused silica.
However, Spartz related to optical measurement devices and thus form the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the window includes infra-red (IR) grade fused silica, (the windows comprise a material that can transmit IR as fused silica, [0081]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Myers by including wherein the window includes infra-red (IR) grade fused silica, (as taught by Spartz) for several advantages such as: fused silica windows are particularly useful in the infrared range since this type of windows generate low absorption and low scattering thus ensuring high optical clarity. Additionally, fused silica is known for its high thermal and radiation resistance, making it suitable for harsh environments and demanding applications, thus increasing the efficiency of the device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers in view of Palmer and Bucholtz and further in view of Ben-Dor et al. (US 2017/0205335 A1), hereafter Ben-Dor.
Regarding claim 13, Myers in the combination outline above teaches the geological system as claimed in claim 1.
The modified device of Myers fail to teach wherein the optical fibre has a limited acceptance angle.
However, Ben-Dor related to optical measuring devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the optical fibre has a limited acceptance angle, ( the acceptance angle of the fiber has a range between 15°-45, [0025]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Myers by including wherein the optical fibre has a limited acceptance angle, (as taught by Ben-Dor) for several advantages such as: the limited acceptance angle of the optical fibers acts as a selective filter, only allowing a specific cone of light to be guided and transmitted efficiently, this characteristic is crucial for designing and balancing the need for efficient light coupling with requirements for signal quality, transmission distance, and bandwidth, thus increase the efficiency of the device.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers in view of Palmer and Bucholtz and further in view of Lan et al. (US 2019/0226335 A1), hereafter Lan.
Regarding claim 14, Myers in the combination outline above teaches the geological system as claimed in claim 1.
The modified device of Myers fail to teach wherein the light source includes a halogen bulb, and preferably a quartz- halogen bulb.
However, Lan related to optical measuring systems in downhole and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the light source includes a quartz- halogen bulb, [0039].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Myers by including wherein the optical fibre has a limited acceptance angle, (as taught by Lan) for several advantages such as: halogen light sources ensure a constant and stable intensity output and a continuous spectrum of light. This stability allows a precise and repeatable measurements, especially in experiments requiring high accuracy thus providing a reliable and efficient way to illuminate samples increasing the accuracy of the device.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers in view of Palmer and Bucholtz and further in view of Holma et al. (US 2022/0283068 A1), hereafter Holma.
Regarding claim 19, Myers in the combination outline above teaches the geological system as claimed in claim 1.
The modified device of Myers further teaches the system is configured to continually scan the geological surface for spectra in the range 400 to 2500nm, ([Col. 10, lines 1-10], Palmer).
The modified device of Myers is silent about where the apparatus is less than 400 mm long, less than 100 mm wide, and/or less than 100 mm high.
Holma related to optical detection system and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches where the apparatus is less than 400 mm long, less than 100 mm wide, and/or less than 100 mm high, ( the device is able to analyze boreholes of 76.3mm or less in diameter, therefore the device is less than 100mm wide, [0054-0055], Additionally, it is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (see MPEP 2144.05 Section II-A).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Myers by including where the apparatus is less than 400 mm long, less than 100 mm wide, and/or less than 100 mm high (as taught by Holma) for several advantages such as: allows investigating material densities from small-diameter boreholes 88 (even boreholes 76.3 mm or less in diameter thus increase the efficiency of the device, ([0054], Holma).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers in view of Palmer and Bucholtz and further in view of Carrieri et al. (US 9,322,768 B1), hereafter Carrieri.
Regarding claim 20, Myers in the combination outline above teaches the geological system as claimed in claim 1.
Myers further teaches including a hole defining the geological surface, ( as shown in Figs. 8-9 element 514, [0041]), the optical fibre ((Figs. 8-9 element 650 + 690) extending along the hole, (as shown in Figs. 8-9) , the system further including a spectrometer (Fig. 9 element 670) located outside the hole, ( as shown in Fig. 9) for receiving a signal from the optical fibre, (the spectrometer receive the signal from the fiber 690, [0041]).
The modified device of Myers fail to teach, the system further including a spectroradiometer.
However, Carrieri related to optical measuring devices and thus form the same field of endeavor teaches the system further including a spectroradiometer, (the device comprise a spectroradiometer, [Col. 4, lines 58-67]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Myers by including the system further including a spectroradiometer (as taught by Carrieri) for several advantages such as: allowing a precise measurement of light's intensity across different wavelengths, providing a detailed spectral distribution of light, thus increase the accuracy of the device.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877