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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s argument that the invention of claims 1 and 11 each present an improvement over current technology in the field of neutron generator reliability is persuasive. Given that the inventions purport to an improvement, they are considered to have integrated the otherwise abstract ideas presented therein into a practical application, thus satisfying the requirements of 35 USC 101. Accordingly, the previous rejections under this heading have been removed.
Reasons for Second Non-Final/Response to Arguments
With respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 11 and 13-14, based on MPEP 2111.04(I) and Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the phrases “threshold indicative of a leak from the housing”, “current above the threshold indicates a leak in a housing that contains the ladder” and “the leak allows insulation gas to escape from the housing” each appear to give meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps of the method. Accordingly, they shall, after all, be given patentable weight, in that the comparison must be to a value that is capable of indicating that a leak has occurred, an excessive current indicates a leak and the leak allows insulation gas to escape the housing.
Applicant’s arguments against the previous rejections have been found persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejection of Simon et al. in view of Weinstein rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection is applied as indicated below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because, considering Figure 1, reference character “104” has been used to designate both derrick and subterranean formation (although labelled 126 in original specification [0022]. Considering Figure 1, reference character “124” has been used to point to both downhole bit and an unknown surface component between 110 and 112.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 242 [0035], 908 [0082].
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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0035], RSS is labelled 242, but not referenced in the drawings nor “discussed below”.
[0081], BHA 116 conflicts with prior borehole reference, not a bottom hole assembly.
[0089], ladder current 1104 and ladder 1104 is a repeated use of “1104” and should be 1004, as shown in [0085].
[0097], pressure calculation in step 1612 uses equation (3), not equation (2).
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-9, 11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins et al. (US 2009/0219028 A1) in view of Gould et al. (US 2017/01798181 A1), and further in view of Adams et al. (NPL – Study of Comet Nucleus Gamma-Ray Spectrometer Penetration System”).
Considering claim 1, Perkins discloses a method, comprising:
- setting a high voltage power supply 12H to a first voltage, wherein the first voltage flows through a power supply of a pulsed neutron logging tool 12 (controller 18; [0018-21]; [0034]);
- taking one or more measurements of a current drawn from the power supply (Figure 2; [0022], current measuring circuit 31 included to monitor current drawn from power supply 12H); and
- comparing the one or more measurements of the current to a threshold ([0034]; Figure 4, block 44).
The invention by Perkins fails to disclose the voltage flows through a ladder disposed within the housing of the pulsed neutron logging tool.
However, Gould teaches a driving a voltage through a ladder 104 of a high voltage power supply within a neutron logging tool housing 110 (Figures 3, 5 and 11; [0032]; [0037]; [0051]).
The invention by Perkins recites a generic high voltage power supply. The invention by Gould teaches that for downhole operations, the constraints of the downhole tool, a voltage multiplier ladder is used to provide very high voltages. One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known ladder of Gould for the high voltage power supply of Perkins, and the results of the substation would have been predictable and repeatable. Both Perkins and Gould are related to high voltage power supplies for downhole tools, specifically neutron generators. Given the suitability for the same purpose, the two structures are considered functionally equivalent for the purpose of supply high voltage, and thus are interchangeable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a high voltage ladder within the power supply of Perkins, as taught by Gould.
The invention by Perkins, as modified by Gould, fails to explicitly disclose that the current is compared to a threshold indicative of a leak in the housing.
However, Adams teaches monitoring current draw from a high voltage power supply, comparing the current to a threshold, and indicating a leak if the current exceeds a threshold (Page 152, “sealed filler gas…can leak”, “if the gas loss is enough to allow the pressure to decrease to a value in the Paschen pressure range…breakdown (arcing, or high intensity corona) of the high voltage bias across the detector would occur”, “one could monitor the current-voltage (I-V) curve of the detector bias supply with an automatic shut-off when a maximum allowable current limit is exceeded. This not only diagnoses the ‘health’ of the detector, but could also detect micro-discharges due to current-limited corona and arcing”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare current drawn of a HV power supply to a threshold for determine a leak condition of a housing, as taught by Adams, in the invention by Perkins, as modified by Gould. The motivation for doing so, as suggested by Adams, is to allow actions to be taken to prevent destruction of electronics due to arcing (Page 152).
Considering claim 5, Perkins discloses adjusting the high voltage power supply to second voltage ([0034-36]; Figure 4, block 48 and 54).
Considering claim 6, Perkins already disclose taking repeated current measurements, ([0034-36]; Figure 4, block 44), therefore the combination would include multiple current measurements, including after increasing or decreasing the power supply voltage.
Considering claim 7, Perkins disclose comparing the one or more measurements of the second current to a threshold ([0034-36]; Figure 4, block 44), therefore the combination would include multiple current measurements and comparisons, including after increasing or decreasing the power supply voltage.
Considering claim 8, Perkins discloses repeating the adjusting the high voltage power supply until a maximum voltage is reached ([0034-35]).
Considering claim 9, Perkins discloses that the one or more measurements are taken by a sensing circuit 31 ([0022]).
Considering claim 11, Perkins discoses a method comprising:
- setting a high voltage power supply 12H to a first voltage, wherein the first voltage flows through a power supply of a pulsed neutron logging tool 12 (controller 18; [0018-21]; [0034]);
- taking one or more measurements of a current drawn from the power supply (Figure 2; [0022], current measuring circuit 31 included to monitor current drawn from power supply 12H);
- taking one or more measurements of a voltage flowing through the power supply ([0034]; Figure 4, block 46); and
- comparing the one or more measurements of the current to a threshold ([0034]; Figure 4, block 44).
The invention by Perkins fails to disclose the voltage flows through a ladder disposed within the housing of the pulsed neutron logging tool.
However, Gould teaches a driving a voltage through a ladder 104 of a high voltage power supply within a neutron logging tool housing 110 (Figures 3, 5 and 11; [0032]; [0037]; [0051]) and measuring voltage of the ladder via 224,226,228 ([0043-47]; Figure 5).
The invention by Perkins recites a generic high voltage power supply. The invention by Gould teaches that for downhole operations, the constraints of the downhole tool, a voltage multiplier ladder is used to provide very high voltages. One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known ladder of Gould for the high voltage power supply of Perkins, and the results of the substation would have been predictable and repeatable. Both Perkins and Gould are related to high voltage power supplies for downhole tools, specifically neutron generators. Given the suitability for the same purpose, the two structures are considered functionally equivalent for the purpose of supply high voltage, and thus are interchangeable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a high voltage ladder within the power supply of Perkins, as taught by Gould.
The invention by Perkins, as modified by Gould, fails to explicitly disclose that the current is compared to a threshold indicative of a leak in the housing.
However, Adams teaches monitoring current draw from a high voltage power supply, comparing the current to a threshold, and indicating a leak if the current exceeds a threshold (Page 152, “sealed filler gas…can leak”, “if the gas loss is enough to allow the pressure to decrease to a value in the Paschen pressure range…breakdown (arcing, or high intensity corona) of the high voltage bias across the detector would occur”, “one could monitor the current-voltage (I-V) curve of the detector bias supply with an automatic shut-off when a maximum allowable current limit is exceeded. This not only diagnoses the ‘health’ of the detector, but could also detect micro-discharges due to current-limited corona and arcing”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare current drawn of a HV power supply to a threshold for determine a leak condition of a housing, as taught by Adams, in the invention by Perkins, as modified by Gould. The motivation for doing so, as suggested by Adams, is to allow actions to be taken to prevent destruction of electronics due to arcing (Page 152).
Considering claim 17, Perkins discloses adjusting the high voltage power supply to second voltage ([0034-36]; Figure 4, block 48 and 54).
Considering claim 18, Perkins already discloses:
- taking repeated current measurements, ([0034-36]; Figure 4, block 44), therefore the combination would include multiple current measurements, including after increasing or decreasing the power supply voltage;
- comparing the one or more measurements of the second current to a threshold ([0034-36]; Figure 4, block 44), therefore the combination would include multiple current measurements and comparisons, including after increasing or decreasing the power supply voltage; and
- repeating the adjusting the high voltage power supply until a maximum voltage is reached ([0034-35]).
Considering claim 19, Perkins discloses that the one or more measurements are taken by a sensing circuit 31 ([0022]).
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins et al. (US 2009/0219028 A1) in view of Gould et al. (US 2017/01798181 A1), and further in view of Adams et al. (NPL – Study of Comet Nucleus Gamma-Ray Spectrometer Penetration System”), as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectively, above, and further in view of Lubicki et al. (US 2012/0003760 A1).
Considering claim 2, Perkins, as modified by Gould and Adams, discloses that the current
threshold is a maximum allowable current (Adams, Page 152), but fails to explicitly disclose that
the threshold is 25-50% more than an expected current moving through the ladder.
However, Lubicki teaches detecting a high voltage supply fault by monitoring a measured current exceeded 20-40% of an expected value ([0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare current drawn of a HV power supply to a threshold being 25-50% more than an expected current value, as taught by Lubicki, in the invention by Perkins, as modified by Gould and Adams. The motivation for doing so is to detect issues soon, thus saving time and minimizing risk of harm.
Considering claim 3, Adams already discloses that a current above the threshold indicates a leak in a housing that contains the ladder (Page 152), thus the combination already discloses this feature.
Considering claim 4, Adams already discloses that the leak allows an insulation gas to escape from the housing (Page 152), thus the combination already discloses this feature.
Considering claim 12, Perkins, as modified by Gould and Adams, discloses that the current threshold is a maximum allowable current (Adams, Page 152), but fails to explicitly disclose that the threshold is 25-50% more than an expected current moving through the ladder.
However, Lubicki teaches detecting a high voltage supply fault by monitoring a measured current exceeded 20-40% of an expected value ([0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare current drawn of a HV power supply to a threshold being 25-50% more than an expected current value, as taught by Lubicki, in the invention by Perkins, as modified by Gould and Adams. The motivation for doing so is to detect issues soon, thus saving time and minimizing risk of harm.
Considering claim 13, Adams already discloses that a current above the threshold indicates a leak in a housing that contains the ladder (Page 152), thus the combination already discloses this feature.
Considering claim 14, Adams already discloses that the leak allows an insulation gas to escape from the housing (Page 152), thus the combination already discloses this feature.
Claims 10, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins et al. (US 2009/0219028 A1) in view of Gould et al. (US 2017/01798181 A1), and further in view of Adams et al. (NPL – Study of Comet Nucleus Gamma-Ray Spectrometer Penetration System”), as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectively, above, and further in view of Krauss et al. (US 2008/0021664 A1).
Considering claim 10, Perkins, as modified by Gould and Adams, fails to explicitly disclose that the sensing circuit comprises a filter.
However, Krauss teaches the use of a filter in a current-sensing signal path of an arc detection circuit (610 applies band-limiting filter, DSP applies digital filters, [0119-122]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a filter in the sensing circuit of Perkins, as modified by Gould and Adams, as taught by Krauss. The motivation for doing so, as taught by Krauss, is to remove aliasing ([0120]).
Considering claim 15, Perkins, as modified by Gould and Adams, fails to disclose comparing the one or more measurements of the current to the one or more measurements of the voltage to determine if a voltage arcing occurred.
However, Krauss determines an arc classification from a comparison between voltage drop and current increase ([0030], [0042], [0155], [0161-163], [0181], Figures 22 and 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare the current and the voltage measurements to determine arcing, as taught by Krauss, in the invention by Perkins, as modified by Gould and Adams. The motivation for doing so, as understood in the art, is to improve arc detection by removing the chance an outlier current or voltage measurement alone could falsely indicate an arc condition.
Considering claim 16, Perkins, as modified by Gould and Adams, fails to explicitly disclose estimating a pressure within a housing that contains the ladder if the voltage arcing occurred.
However, the conditional language of “if the voltage arcing occurred”, nor claims 11 or 15, require an actual leak or arc to be present, merely the detection of an arc condition. Therefore, since the arcing is not required to occur, in accordance with MPEP 211.04(II), this limitation is not required to be performed. Therefore, the claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 15.
Considering claim 20, Perkins, as modified by Gould and Adams, fails to explicitly disclose that the sensing circuit comprises a filter.
However, Krauss teaches the use of a filter in a current-sensing signal path of an arc detection circuit (610 applies band-limiting filter, DSP applies digital filters, [0119-122]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a filter in the sensing circuit of Perkins, as modified by Gould and Adams, as taught by Krauss. The motivation for doing so, as taught by Krauss, is to remove aliasing ([0120]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 September 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights