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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/1/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/4/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmer et al. (20090294174 – Harmer).
Harmer discloses a tool and method, comprising:
Re claim 1:
a segment (see segment in rectangular in attached figure below) of drill pipe 22 comprising elongate body (28 - "tubing", fig. 1; para [0033]; not labeled in fig. 3 but drillstring 22 uses the same tubing 28) configured for loading into a drill string (See figs. 1 and 3; see how tubing 28 is a part of drillstring 22 and loaded thereto) extending from a box end to a pin end (i.e., the drill segment generally comprises box end/female thread and pin end/male thread to couple with the drill pipe); and
PNG
media_image1.png
455
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a sensor array (42 - "multiple sensors", fig. 3; para [0034]) arranged on the body (See fig. 3), the sensor array comprising:
a first sensor (See rectangular in attached figure; see pair of sensors 42) arranged at a first sensor location on the body, the first sensor being oriented relative to the body and configured for sensing annular pressures in a wellbore (para [0037], 'sensors 42 comprises pressure sensor', fig, 5); and
a second sensor (See rectangular in attached figure; see pair of sensors 42 that is the second from the bottom) arranged at a second sensor location on the body, the second sensor location being spaced longitudinally along the body from the first sensor location by a first distance (See rectangular in attached figure), the second sensor being oriented relative to the body (See fig. 3) and configured for sensing annular pressures in a wellbore (para [0037], 'sensors 42 comprises pressure sensor', fig, 5).
Harmer is silent on a segment of drill pipe comprising an elongate body having a length ranging from approximately 20 feet to approximately 40 feet and extending from a box end to a pin end. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to try the segment of drill pipe of Harmer with a length ranging from approximately 20 feet to approximately 40 feet and extending from a box end to a pin end, to accurately detect a desired parameter in a certain length of drill pipe segment, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claim 2, a third sensor (See fig. 3; see pair of sensors 42 that are on the bottom) arranged at a third sensor location on the body (See fig. 3), the third sensor location being spaced longitudinally along the body from the second sensor location by a second distance and in a direction opposite the first sensor location (See fig. 3; para [0037], [0045]; see how middle (second) sensors 42 are in between top (third) sensors 42 and bottom (first) sensors 42), the third sensor being oriented relative to the body (See fig. 3) and configured for sensing annular pressures in a wellbore (See fig. 3; para [0037]-[0039]).
Re claim 4, the first distance is not equal to the second distance (See fig.3; see how middle (second) sensors 42 are closer to bottom (first) sensors 42 than they are to top (third) sensors 42).
Re claim 5, the first sensor comprises a first pair of sensors (See fig. 3; para [0039]- [0040]; see how each sensor 42 comprises an internal and external sensor 42), the second sensor comprises a second pair of sensors (See fig. 3; para [0039]-[0040]; see how each sensor 42 comprises an internal and external sensor 42), and the third sensor comprises a third pair of sensors (See fig. 3; para [0039]-[0040]; see how each sensor 42 comprises an internal and external sensor 42), the pairs of sensors being arranged longitudinally relative to one another or circumferentially relative to one another at their respective sensor locations (See fig. 3; see how each sensor pair 42 is arranged on opposite sides of the circumference of drillstring 22).
Re claim 6, the first sensor and the second sensor are configured for communicating a pressure sensor signal to a surface where drilling is being performed (See fig. 3; para [0034]; sensors 42 communicate with processor 44 at surface location 46).
Re claim 7, the first and second sensor are configured for wireless communication (para [0034]; "wireless communication systems").
Re claim 8, the first and second sensor are configured for communicating using a telemetry system (para [0039], [0050]-[0051]).
Re claim 9, the telemetry system is a pulse flow telemetry system (para [0039], [0050]).
Re claim 10, the telemetry system is an electromagnetic telemetry system (para [0019], [0050]).
Re claim 11, monitoring wellbore characteristics (See figs. 3-11; para [0039]- [0040]; para [0032] refers to fig. 1 embodiment but refers to many of the same components), comprising:
receiving pressure sensor signals (para [0051]) from first (see pair of sensors 42 in the rectangular in the attached figure above) and second (see pair of sensors 42 in the rectangular in the attached figure) sensors arranged on and spaced longitudinally along an along string measurement tool (22 - "drillstring", fig. 3) comprising a segment (see segment in rectangular in the attached figure) of drill pipe 22 comprising elongate body (28 - "tubing", fig. 1; para [0033]; not labeled in fig. 3 but drillstring 22 uses the same tubing 28) extending from a box end to a pin end (i.e., the drill segment generally comprises box end/female thread and pin end/male thread to couple with the drill pipe), the first and second sensor being spaced apart by a first distance (see the rectangular in the attached figure), the first and second sensor being oriented relative to the body (See fig. 3) and configured for sensing annular pressures in a wellbore (para [0037], 'sensors 42 comprises pressure sensor', fig, 5)
calculating a differential pressure signal based on the signals from the first and second sensors (para [0030], [0042] - "annular pressure loss differences between sensors");
displaying a differential pressure signal for a drilling operator (para [0041]-[0045] - "enables real-time pressure distributions to be viewed and interpreted at the surface on, for example, output device 64").
Harmer is silent on a segment of drill pipe comprising an elongate body having a length ranging from approximately 20 feet to approximately 40 feet and extending from a box end to a pin end. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to try the segment of drill pipe of Harmer with a length ranging from approximately 20 feet to approximately 40 feet and extending from a box end to a pin end, to accurately detect a desired parameter in a certain length of drill pipe segment, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claim 12, calculating an interval density signal based on the differential pressure signal (para [0035], [0042], [0044], [0046]; interval density of fluid is calculated using pressure signals from sensors 42).
Re claim 13, displaying the interval density signal (para [0041]-[0046] - "enables real-time pressure distributions to be viewed and interpreted at the surface on, for example, output device 64"; See fig. 6).
Re claim 14, receiving a pressure sensor signal from a third sensor (See fig. 3; see pair of sensors 42 that are on the bottom) arranged on and spaced longitudinally along the along string measurement tool (See fig. 3; para [0037], [0045]), the third sensor being spaced from the second sensor by a second distance and in an opposite direction as the first sensor (See fig. 3; para [0037], [0045]; see how middle (second) sensors 42 are in between top (third) sensors 42 and bottom (first) sensors 42).
Re claim 15, calculating a differential pressure signal based on the signals from the third and first sensors (See fig. 3; para [0041]-[0046]; signals from all of sensors 42 are used by processor 42).
Re claim 16, calculating a differential pressure signal based on the signals from the third and second sensors (See fig. 3; para [0041]-[0046]; signals from all of sensors 42 are used by processor 42).
Re claim 17, calculating interval density signals based on the differential pressure signals between the third and first sensor and the third and second sensor (See fig. 3; para [0041]-[0046]; signals from all of sensors 42 are used by processor 42 to calculate densities).
Re claim 20, receiving is performed by a telemetry system (para [0039], [0050]- [00511).
Re claim 21, receiving multiresolution data including the pressure sensor signals from the first and second sensor (See fig. 3; para [0041]-[0046]; signals from sensors 42 are used by processor 44) and receiving a pressure sensor signal from a third sensor arranged on another along string measurement tool (para [0046]; algorithms, models and lookup tables are used from previous tools in order to achieve the desired output of the along string measuring tool).
Re claim 22, performing a hierarchical analysis of the multiresolution data (para [0046]; algorithms, models and lookup tables are used from previous tools in order to achieve the desired output of the along string measuring tool).
Re claim 23, Harmer teaches the method of claim 11, but does not specifically teach the method further comprising denoising the pressure sensor signals or the differential pressure signal or both using at least one of a time-domain filter, a frequency-domain filter, and a combined time-frequency filter. Further, Turner teaches a method of monitoring wellbore characteristics (See figs. 1-2; para [0031], [0034]-[0035]) comprising denoising a pressure signal (See figs. 1-2; para [0033]-[0034]; sensor nodes 30 send signals to a wellsite computer) using a time-domain filter (para [0036], [0042]; processed over a period of time). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to use the denoising of the pressure signal like that of Turner on the pressure signal of Harmer in order to allow for cleaner readings to be displayed to an operator.
Conclusion
The cited prior art show similar features to those of clamed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO whose telephone number is (571)270-5466. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights