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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filled on 06/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-10, filed 06/06/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C § 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the claim rejection of 35 U.S.C § 112(a) of Claims 3-8 have been withdrawn.
Examiner response to arguments under 35 U.S.C § 103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10-12, filed 06/06/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C § 103, the examiner respectfully disagrees since Myers, Palmer and Bucholtz are in the same field of endeavor of optical measurements systems. Additionally, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Moreover, in regard that Bucholtz’s device have contact with the soil, the Examiner agree since Bucholtz’s device comprises a housing that penetrate the soil therefore have contact with the surface. However, Applicant arguments are focused in the limitation “an apparatus scanning an uneven geological surface without contacting the geological surface” even though the first reference Myers et al. in a 103 rejection previously discloses the limitation cited above in paragraph [0041] and also as shown in Fig. 8-9. Moreover Bucholtz is used in a 103 rejection to modified the light transmission and reflection. 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 see page 12, that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5
USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir.
1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, 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). Also, 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).
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 (Fig. 3A of Bucholtz) in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new rejection is based on Fig. 3C of Bucholtz.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 13, with respect to claim 8, 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 (i.e., page 13 second paragraph) 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). Additionally, the limitations of claim 8 are disclosed by Bucholtz in ([Col. 7, lines 1-5]).
In response to applicant’s argument see page 14-18 of claim 2, 6, 10, 13, 14 and 19-20, that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case:
(claim 6) 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 8) 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 10) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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.
Additionally, Koh, Firmin, Spartz, Ben-Dor, Lan, Holma and Carrieri nor suggest a non-contact geological surface scanning apparatus. However, Applicant arguments are focused in the limitation “an apparatus scanning an uneven geological surface without contacting the geological surface” even though the first reference Myers et al. in a 103 rejection previously discloses the limitation in paragraph [0041] as shown in Fig. 8-9.
Moreover Bucholtz is used in a 103 rejection to modified the light transmission from a reflector. Therefore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary’s 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).
Furthermore, the examiner submits that Koh, Firmin, Spartz, Ben-Dor, Lan, Holma and Carrieri of claims 2, 6, 10, 13, 14 and 19-20 are in the same field of endeavor of optical measurements systems and does not change the principle of operation of the primary reference of Myers or renders the reference inoperable for its intended purpose, See MPEP § 2143.01. Additionally, limitations in claims 2, 6, 10, 13, 14 and 19-20 are related to optical elements of optical measuring devices and do not comprise any limitation regarding the procedure of analyzing the geological surface. Therefore, submits that Koh, Firmin, Spartz, Ben-Dor, Lan, Holma and Carrieri of claims 2, 6, 10, 13, 14 and 19-20 are in the same field of endeavor.
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) scanning an uneven geological surface without contacting the geological surface, (the in situ measurement tool use a laser scanning device analyzing the sidewall of helical path of a borehole. Such as, does not need to contact the geological surface when scanning, since uses an optical technique. Also paragraph [0041] comprise multiple embodiments wherein the apparatus scan geological without contacting the geological surface such as “an in-situ measurement tool may be lowered into the formation via wireline. By rotating the in-situ measurement tool, for instance, in a helical path, the sidewall of a borehole may be examined. The in-situ measurement tool could use a laser scanning and optical technique to translate the laser across the sidewall surface”, In-situ measurement tool 620 may be lowered into wellbore 510 using wirelines or tubing conveyance 660, which connects with wireline or tubing 650 to in-situ measurement tool 620”, as shown in Figs 8-9 [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), [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 including a mirror configured to both (i) reflect incident light from the light source toward the geological surface and (ii) reflect light reflected from the geological surface toward an optical fibre, the optical fibre 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 including a mirror configured to both (i) reflect incident light from the light source toward the geological surface and (ii) reflect light reflected from the geological surface toward an optical fibre, the optical fibre receiving the reflected light from the reflector
Bucholtz related to optical measurement and thus form the same field of endeavor teaches a reflector (Fig. 3C element 53, [Col. 6, lines 57-67]) including a mirror (element 53 included a mirror, [Col. 7 lines 1-7]) configured to both (i) reflect incident light (Fig. 3C element 55) from the light source (Fig. 3C element 35) toward the geological surface (33), (“The light 55 impinging on the mirror 53 is reflected out through the transmission window 31 in the penetrometer tube 29 to the soil 33”, [Col. 6, line 67 to Col. 7, lines 1-2]) and (ii) reflect light reflected (55) from the geological surface (33) toward an optical fibre (Fig. 3C element 47), the optical fibre (47) receiving the reflected light (55) from the reflector (53), (“Light 55 reflected from the soil 33 through the transmission window 31 strikes the ellipsoidal mirror 53 which focuses that reflected light 55 into the fiber 47.”, [Col. 7, lines 1-7]).
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 including a mirror configured to both (i) reflect incident light from the light source toward the geological surface and (ii) reflect light reflected from the geological surface toward an optical fibre, the optical fibre 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 consists of a single mirror, configured to reflect the incident light and the reflected light.
(claim 4) wherein the mirror is obliquely oriented to the 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. 3C element 53) consists of a single mirror, (element 53 is a single ellipsoidal mirror as shown in Fig. 2E, [Col. 6, lines 62-67]), configured to reflect the incident light and the reflected light, [Col. 6, lines 57-67]- [Col.
7 lines 1-7]).
(claim 4) wherein the mirror (Fig. 3C element 53) is obliquely oriented to the a sole side of the geological surface, (as shown in Figs. 15-16 the reflecting surface of mirrors 53 and/or 59 are obliquely oriented to the soil 57, [Col. 9, lines 3-10]).
(claim 5) wherein the mirror (Fig. 3C element 53) includes a concave, spherical, parabolic or elliptical mirror, ([Col. 6, lines 61-67]).
(claim 7) wherein the mirror includes an optical mirror, (the reflector 53 comprises a mirror surface that is used 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. 3C element 53) focuses the reflected light (Fig. 3C element 55) onto, or proximal to, the optical fibre (Fig. 3C element 47), ([Col. 7, lines 1-5]).
(claim 9) wherein the apparatus includes a window (Fig. 3C element 31) through which the incident and reflected light passes, ([Col. 6, lines 67 to Col. 7, lines 1-7]).
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 consists of a single mirror, configured to reflect the incident light and the reflected light, wherein the mirror is obliquely oriented to the a sole side of 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 onto, or proximal to, the optical fibre, 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 and/or to the optical fibre (Fig. 3C element 47) is transverse the direction of light from the wall (Figs 15-16 element 57), (as shown in Figs 15-16).
(claim 12) wherein the optical fibre (Fig. 3C element 47) includes an optical fibre bundle, [Col. 4, lines 25-32].
(claim 15) wherein the light source (Fig. 3C element 35, also as show in (Figs. 7 element 21C and Fig. 2B), [Col. 7, lines 15-25] 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 the light source 21A 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, [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. 3C light generated by the light source 35 reflected by element 51 is transmit light axially along the hole in which the apparatus is moved inside the hole, [Col. 6, lines 57-67], Col. 7, lines 1-7]).
(claim 18) wherein the apparatus includes an housing (Fig. 3C element 29) for housing the optical fibre (Fig. 3C element 47), [Col. 6, lines 57-67], Col. 7, lines 1-7]).
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 15], 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 1, wherein a beam of the incident light departs from the mirror (Fig. 3C), to the geological surface, (as shown in Fig. 15-16 the light beam departs form the mirror 53/59 to the soil, [col. 9, lines 3-10], 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. (US2019/0017873 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. (US2017/0205335 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]).
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 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].
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, [00540055], 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eising et al. (US 2016/0349167 A1), discloses as shown in FIGS. 8 to 10 a detector system 112 that extends radially of coulter 110, the output light is emitted by halogen bulb 114, focused by concave mirror 118 onto aperture 122 and sapphire window 120.. One end 124 of optical fiber cable 126 acts as light detector, [0042].
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
Prosecution Insights