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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “cylindrical channel” recited in instant dependent claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-4 are 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. The claim(s) 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. Instant independent claims 1 recites the method step of “calculating an instantaneous drilling fluid density using the measured force or a change of a drilling density using a change of the measured force.” Based on the instant filed specification, the calculation of fluid density requires (i.e. only has written description) for the equations which are recited in instant dependent claims 2 and 3, which both recite: “the drilling fluid density (
ρ
f
l
)” is calculated by equations in claims 2 and 3, respectively. However, the derivation of these equations on pages 5 and 6 of the instant filed specification fails to account for the effects of gravity on the weights of both the displaced fluid and the probe.
For example, the equation provided (appearing below) in the instant filed specification is incorrect and does not account for gravitational force in regards to the buoyancy force
F
B
o
.
F
B
o
=
ρ
f
l
∙
V
=
ρ
f
l
∙
W
ρ
p
The buoyancy force
F
B
o
, correctly written, to include effects of gravity is:
F
B
o
=
ρ
f
l
∙
V
∙
g
In addition, the units of the term
ρ
f
l
∙
V
in the instant filed specification equation are not force units (i.e. N = kg·m/s2) but mass (i.e. kg), which, in turn, is not equivalent to the force units of the term
ρ
f
l
∙
W
ρ
p
and the volume V (which is both the volume of the probe and the volume of displaced fluid creating the buoyancy force) is not equivalent to the term
W
ρ
p
, since the weight (W) of the probe must be:
W
=
m
p
g
, and the units of the term
W
ρ
p
(i.e. m4/s2) is not equivalent to the volume V (i.e. m3), and thus cannot be simply substituted for the volume V term
(i.e.
V
≠
W
ρ
p
), resulting a false equivalency and resulting false equation/functional relationship, which cannot eventually yield the actual fluid density. As such, the following equations regarding the effective weight We are also false equations/functional relationships in the instant filed specification, thus, in turn, the derived equations recited in instant dependent claims 2 and 3 are also false equations/functional relationships for the previous reasons, as well as failing to include the effects of gravity. As such, the instant disclosure lacks written description for the claimed invention, in particular, to calculate an actual density of the drilling fluid, since it requires false equivalencies and functional relationships, and does not account for the effects of gravity.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As pointed out above, the equations/functional relationship recited in instant dependent claims 2 and 3 fail to have adequate written description. Claims 2 and 3 are also rendered indefinite, as it is unclear as to how the equations/functional relationships recited in the claims provide the actual density of the drilling fluid, since the derivations of the equations/functional relationships do not account for effects due to gravity and other incorrect assumptions.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FS)]Employing a free-body diagram of all the forces on an object “o” suspended in a fluid is provided below:
Wherein:
Fs: static pressure force, wherein h: is height/depth below surface of the fluid, and g is gravity and
ρ
f
is the density of the fluid:
F
s
=
ρ
f
∙
g
∙
h
Fb: buoyancy force, which is equal to the weight of fluid
W
f
displaced by object and Vo is the volume of the object:
F
b
=
W
f
=
ρ
f
V
o
g
Wo: weight of object, and
m
o
is the mass of the object and
ρ
o
is the density of the object in air:
W
o
=
m
o
g
=
ρ
o
V
o
g
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (0)]Summing all the forces to obtain a resultant force FR acting on the object, wherein Fs = 0, since the object does not substantially change its height/depth:
F
R
=
F
s
+
W
o
-
F
b
=
W
o
-
W
f
Solving for the density of the fluid
ρ
f
:
F
R
=
ρ
o
V
o
g
-
ρ
f
V
o
g
F
R
=
V
o
g
ρ
o
-
ρ
f
g
F
R
V
o
=
ρ
o
-
ρ
f
ρ
f
=
ρ
o
-
g
F
R
V
o
As such, any calculation of the actual density of the fluid
ρ
f
based on a measured resultant force
F
R
on the immersed object must include gravitational forces. The equations recited in instant dependent claims 2 and 3 are devoid of gravitational affects, as well as unclear aspects of their derivation within the instant filed specification, and thus cannot represent a true/actual density of the fluid
ρ
f
, rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The instant filed drawings fail to depict a “cylindrical channel,” nor does the instant filed specification describe and/or define the structural aspects of the “cylindrical channel,” thus rendering claim 8 indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being U.S. 2016/0252440 by Wright et al. Wright et al. disclose a measuring assembly (see entire reference) for measuring solid precipitation of a drilling fluid, comprising mud, in static conditions (note: the drilling fluid, comprising mud, is an intended use of the apparatus, and has no patentable weight regarding the structural aspects of the recited apparatus, which is capable of determining solid precipitation (i.e. density) of any fluid); a fluid chamber (20) holding the fluid sample; a probe (110), wherein the weight of the probe is known and a density of the probe is above a maximum density that the fluid is allowed to have (see para 0117), thus remains static in the fluid due to its own weight; a hanger (129), wherein the hanger has a length to hold the probe in the fluid chamber, wherein the probe is completely embedded in the fluid and does not contact a base of the fluid chamber (see Fig. 2A); a precision balance (100), wherein the precision balance allows measurement of a sum of a weight acting on the probe and a buoyant force caused by the fluid (meeting all the limitations recited in instant independent claim 5).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. 3,821,901 to Fann. Fann discloses a measurement method for non-destructive and time dependent measurement of solid precipitation of drilling fluid/mud, in static conditions (see entire reference), wherein the measurement method includes the steps of taking a drilling fluid/mud sample into a fluid chamber (130), suspending a probe (101) into the drilling fluid by means of a hanger (112), wherein the probe is completely embedded in the drilling fluid/mud and does not contact the base of the fluid chamber, wherein a weight of the probe is known and the density of the probe is above a maximum density that the drilling fluid/mud is allowed to have, keeping the drilling fluid in a static state (i.e. there is no flow or movement of the drilling fluid/mud within the chamber during measurements), measuring (via a balance mechanism, see upper portion of Fig. 2 and associated text) a sum of a weight acting on the probe and the buoyant force caused by the drilling fluid/mud during holding of the drilling fluid/mud; calculating (i.e. mental calculation/evaluation/reading of the position of an index pointer (37) on a dial scale relative to markings on the dial scale) an inherently instantaneous drilling fluid density/specific gravity or inherently its change over time (note: specific gravity is the relative density of the drilling fluid/mud to a reference material/fluid, typically water for liquids/solids and air for gasses, thus is a direct representation of the density of the drilling fluid/mud) using the measured force or a change of a fluid density using a change in the measured force (meeting the limitations recited in instant independent claim 1). However, if the method steps regarding “calculating” and “measured force” are to be narrowly construed as being performed by non-human calculator (i.e. computer/processor) and associated non-human sensor/sensor apparatus providing output signals to the computer/processor, evidence of such knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention is provided by U.S. 2016/0252440 by Wright et al. Wright et al. discloses a measurement system/method for (i.e. capable of) non-destructive and time-dependent measurement of solid precipitation of drilling fluid/mud, in static conditions, sharing many of the same elements of the apparatus/method disclosed by Fann, including a fluid chamber (20) holding the fluid sample; a probe (110), wherein the weight of the probe is known and a density of the probe is above a maximum density that the fluid is allowed to have, thus remains static in the fluid due to its own weight; a hanger (129), wherein the hanger has a length to hold the probe in the fluid chamber, wherein the probe is completely embedded in the fluid and does not contact a base of the fluid chamber (see Fig. 2A); a precision balance (100), wherein the precision balance allows measurement of a sum of a weight (i.e. measured total/resultant force) acting on the probe and a buoyant force caused by the fluid employing a computer/processor (see Wright et al. para 0143). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention employ non-human calculating and measurements via a computer/processor and sensors, which would result in a more accurate determination of the drilling fluid/mud density without human error, if the claimed elements/steps are to be narrowly construed.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 3,821,901 to Fann, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. 2016/0252440 by Wright et al. Fann discloses a measurement method having all of the elements and/or method steps stated previously. Fann does not explicitly disclose the measurement method wherein a temperature of the drilling fluid/mud sample is further regulated during measurement. Wright et al. discloses that heating/cooling means (133) (see Fig. 15) can be employed which can be controlled to heat/cool the fluid to a desired/predetermined/regulated/controlled temperature for taking measurements of the fluid density (see para 0140). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the measurement method disclosed by Fann, employing heating/cooling means to regulate/control the temperature of the drilling fluid/mud, which directly affects/controls the density and other rheological properties of the drilling fluid/mud during measurements (see paras 0101 & 0151 and claim 14 of Wright et al.).
Claims 6, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2016/0252440 by Wright et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of GB 2365982 to Rickward and U.S. 2021/0381369 to Jackson et al. Wright et al. disclose a measuring assembly having all of the elements stated previously. Wright et al. do not explicitly disclose that the probe is in the form of an ellipsoid, wherein a vertical axis of the ellipsoid is longer than a horizontal axis of the ellipsoid (as recited in instant dependent claim 6); wherein the probe has a ratio of each horizontal axis length (in a circular shape) to a vertical axis length between 0.3 and 0.4 (as recited in instant dependent claim 7); or wherein the probe has a ratio of horizontal axis length to a diameter of the cylindrical fluid chamber is less than 0.3 (as recited in instant dependent claim 9). However, Wright et al. discloses that the probe is a “torpedo” shape, does not limit the “torpedo” shaped probe, and a torpedo shape is broadly defined as a cigar-like/long cylindrical body form that is rounded at the front an tapers towards the back, which reduces friction and resistance/drag when moving through fluids. As such, a torpedo shaped probe would facilitate the placement of the probe into the fluid chamber holding the fluid, moving and placed more easily into the fluid as it is submerged, without a great deal of disturbance to the fluid. This behavior would also be exhibited by an ellipsoid shaped prove, as recited in the claims. Rickward discloses a measuring assembly for measuring the density/specific gravity of a fluid (12) (see entire reference) sharing many of the elements of the apparatus of Wright et al., wherein a probe/displacement means (2) can comprise a roughly spherical body, and that any probe shape may be suitable, such as cylindrical or pear shaped, and it is convenient that the probe shaped so that fluids other than that being measured, foreign fluids (for example air) cannot be trapped as the probe enters the fluid since such trapping of foreign fluids would lead to inaccuracies in the measured specific gravity/density (see Rickward, page 6, lines 7-14). This would also be true for any solid particles that may be present in the drilling fluid/mud, thus preventing solid particles from accumulating on the probe, which would also lead to inaccuracies in the measurement of specific gravity/density by adding mass to the probe. Rickward also discloses that such simple shapes are also relatively easy to clean (see Rickward, page 20, lines 10-11). Jackson et al. disclose a probe (202) configured for determining properties of a drilling fluid/mud, including rheological properties including density and viscosity (see entire reference), wherein the outer shell of the probe can be any suitable size, and any suitable shape based on fluid conditions, including, but not limited to: spherical, egg-shaped or ovoid, plumb-bob shaped, cylinder, rounded cylinder, cone, rounded cone and parachute-shaped, and that an ovoid shape facilitates movement through the fluid; and certain shapes allow for the probe to maintain a specific orientation as it sinks through the drilling fluid/mud, such as maintained vertical/upright orientation, as well as reduce drag (see para 0032), and wherein Fig. 5 clearly discloses an ellipsoid shape. Jackson et al. further disclose that other shapes can also be useful and configured to facilitate the measurement of the desired fluid property (see Jackson et al. paras 0033 and 0056). Thus, based on the teachings of both Rickward and Jackson et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant to modify the probe disclosed by Wright et al., to any desired shape, including an ellipsoid having the dimensional requirements and orientations recited in instant dependent claims 6 and 7, to provide more accurate measurement results of the density. Lastly, in specific regards to instant dependent 9, the specific dimensional aspects regarding the probe and fluid chamber, these overall dimensional aspects would be based on choice of the size and shape of the probe, the size/volumetric capacity of the chamber, and the total amount of fluid sample available to test/measure. Thus if fluid samples are limited, employing a volumetrically small chamber and correspondingly sized probe to be immersed in the fluid within the chamber would be advantageous for small/limited sample supplies. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the dimensional relationship recited in instant dependent claim 9, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious, which hold true for instant dependent claims 6 and 7, and through routine experimentation of probe sizes, shapes and fluid chamber volumes/dimensional aspects, would result in a measurement system functioning the most accurately and repeatedly for a specific fluid under test. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2016/0252440 by Wright et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. 6,240,770 to Raffer. Wright et al. discloses an apparatus having all of the elements and functionality stated previously. Wright et al. further discloses that an optional heating/cooling means (133) (see Fig. 15) can be employed which can be controlled to heat/cool the fluid to a desired/predetermined temperature for taking measurements of the fluid density (see para 0140). Wright et al. does not explicitly disclose a heat jacket which surrounds the fluid chamber from sides and keeps the fluid chamber at the predetermined temperature (as recited in instant dependent claim 10). Raffer discloses an apparatus for measuring rheological properties of a fluid (see entire reference) employing a fluid chamber/cup (5), which employs a heat jacket/temperature control cup (12) surrounding the fluid chamber/cup. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention to employ the heat jacket taught by Raffer, modifying the heater disclosed by Wright et al., to provide uniform heating of the fluid within the chamber and ensuring the fluid is maintained at a homogenous temperature distribution within the fluid sample in a short period of time since the rheological properties of the fluid changes with time, and uniform temperature is achieved in a short period of time (see Raffer: col. 1, lines 44-54).
Conclusion
Due to the presence of rejections of claims 2, 3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112, the Examiner could not reasonably perform a search and consideration of the prior art in regards to the some of the claims, and as such, the absence of any rejections of any claims under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is not an indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner John Fitzgerald whose telephone number is (571) 272-2843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM E.S.T. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor John Breene, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4107. 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. The central 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.
/JOHN FITZGERALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855