Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection under 112 second paragraph rejection of claims 1 and 7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claims 1 and 7, the applicant argues that the claims have been amended to solve all the indefinite issues [see applicant’s arguments section I], but the applicant did not address all the issues or did not provide arguments explaining why the 112 rejection is improper. For this reason, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments ins regards to the prior art rejection of claims 1, 7 and 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claims 1, 7 and 13, the claims were amended with limitation that were previously claimed in claim 22. The applicant argues that Patel (US-2011/0192596), hereinafter Patel596, does not teach the claimed full wet connect and the performing the test without any control lines [see applicant’s arguments pg. 4 L. 18-26, pg. 5 L. 19-27, pg. 6 L. 1]. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The applicant appears to be reading each cited prior art individually and not as a combination as required in a 103 rejection. Patel596 was not used to show the claimed full wet connect because Patel et al. (US-8,056,619), hereinafter Patel and which was part of the rejection, was used for that purpose [see Patel fig. 29 elements 118 and 1504, col. 5 L. 7-12, col. 7 L. 4-7, col. 24 L. 12-15]. Furthermore, the examiner only used Patel596 to show that instructions and data from/to the surface can sent to/from a remote monitoring and control module a wireless manner [see Patel596 fig. 5, par. 0036 L. 2-10, par. 0040]. This means that the instructions and data can be sent from/to the surface to/from the remote monitoring and control module without any control lines extending from the surface of the wellbore to the lower completion for performing the instructions and transmission of data. Furthermore, Patel teaches that communications from/to the surface can be used to perform a well test [see Patel fig. 29 element 1502, col. 24 L. 45-57]. Therefore, the combination of Patel and Patel596 teach that communications can be performed between the surface and the remote monitoring and control module in a wireless manner (without control lines) and that communications are used to perform a well test. In other words, the combination teaches that a well test can be performed without control lines running from the surface to the lower completion. As shown above, the combination teaches the argued limitations. For this reason, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The applicant further argues that the combination does not teach enabling pre-completion formation testing in a modular, disconnectable system that operates independently of surface control infrastructure [see applicant’s arguments pg. 5 L. 7-12]. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The applicant is arguing limitations that are not present in the claim. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Also, the applicant argues that the examiner has not provided a reason to combine the references and that the examiner has used hindsight reconstruction [see applicant’s arguments pg. 5 L. 13-18, pg. 6 L. 2-13]. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The examiner clearly stated in the rejection of claim 22 that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Patel596’s teachings of using wireless communications in the method taught by Patel because it will permit the downhole device to send and transmit data without control lines. The examiner clearly provided a reason to combine the references. Furthermore, substitution of a wired communication with a wireless communication constitutes a simple substitution one known element for another to obtain predictable results which in the case of the combination is to transmit data without using cables or lines. For his reason, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 following limitations must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
A wireless transceiver as claimed in claim 23.
An onboard power storage as claimed in claim 25.
A sand control screen and a gravel pack assembly as claimed in claim 26.
A locking mechanism as claimed in claim 28.
A chemical injection port as claimed in claim 29.
A chemical injection system as claimed in claim 33.
A battery pack as claimed in claim 34.
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.
Claim(s) 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 and 32-34 is/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.
In regards to claim 25, the claim recites “onboard power storage sufficient to operate for at least 72 hours”. The applicant’s specification fails to recite the claimed limitation. Therefore, the limitations recited in claim 25 constitute new matter. For this reason, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
In regards to claim 26, the claim recites “a sand control screen and a gravel pack assembly”. The applicant’s specification fails to recite the claimed limitations. Therefore, the limitations recited in claim 26 constitute new matter. For this reason, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
In regards to claim 28, the claim recites “the full wet connect assembly includes a locking mechanism that prevents decoupling during high-pressure testing”. The applicant’s specification fails to recite the claimed limitation. Therefore, the limitations recited in claim 28 constitute new matter. For this reason, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement. No prior art was found for the aforementioned limitation. However, allowability of the claim cannot be determined at this time due to the issues described above.
In regards to claim 29, the claim recites “the lower completion includes a chemical injection port controlled by the remote monitoring and control module”. The applicant’s specification fails to recite the claimed limitation. The specification, in paragraph 0029, only recites that the upper completion can comprise chemical injection equipment. Therefore, the limitations recited in claim 29 constitute new matter. For this reason, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement. No prior art was found for the aforementioned limitation. However, allowability of the claim cannot be determined at this time due to the issues described above.
In regards to claim 30, the claim recites “the remote monitoring and control module is configured to store test data locally and transmit it upon reconnection with the surface”. The applicant’s specification fails to recite the claimed limitation. Therefore, the limitations recited in claim 30 constitute new matter. For this reason, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
In regards to claim 32, the claim recites “the well test includes measuring formation pressure and temperature over a predetermined time interval”. The applicant’s specification fails to recite the claimed limitation. The applicant’s specification, in paragraph 0012, only recites the transmission of pressures and temperatures to the surface, but it does not recite that pressure and temperature is measured at a predetermined time interval. Therefore, the limitations recited in claim 32 constitute new matter. For this reason, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
In regards to claim 33, the claim recites “a chemical injection system in the lower completion”. The applicant’s specification fails to recite the claimed limitation. The specification, in paragraph 0029, only recites that the upper completion can comprise chemical injection equipment. Therefore, the limitations recited in claim 29 constitute new matter. For this reason, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement. No prior art was found for the aforementioned limitation. However, allowability of the claim cannot be determined at this time due to the issues described above.
In regards to claim 34, the claim recites “battery pack integrated into the monitoring and control module”. The applicant’s specification fails to recite the claimed limitation. Therefore, the limitations recited in claim 34 constitute new matter. For this reason, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 23-30 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 1, the claim recites in lines 9-11 “further when the remote monitoring and control module is configured to perform a well test of a subterranean formation of a wellbore surrounding the lower completion prior to running an upper completion within the wellbore”. The sentence of the limitation starts with the word “when”. The word “when” in the claim means that a function/process happens if a condition occurs. Therefore, it us unclear what function/process happens when the remote monitoring and control module is configured to perform a well test. As shown above, the claim appears to have some limitations missing. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted lines 9-13 of the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “wherein the remote monitoring and control module is configured to perform a well test of a subterranean formation of a wellbore surrounding the lower completion prior to running an upper completion within the wellbore, and without any control lines extending from a surface of the wellbore to the lower completion for performing the well test of the subterranean formation”.
In regards to claim(s) 2-6 and 23-26, the claim(s) is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency on indefinite claim 1.
In regards to claim 7, lines 11-14 of the claim has the same issues described in the rejection of claim 1 above. For this reason, the claim is indefinite.
In regards to claim(s) 8-12 and 27-30, the claim(s) is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency on indefinite claim 7.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-16, 18-21, 24-27, 30 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-8,056,619) hereinafter Patel in view of Patel (US-2011/0192596) hereinafter Patel596.
In regards to claim 1, Patel teaches a downhole tool comprising a lower completion [col. 4 L. 65-67]. Also, Patel teaches that the tool comprises a half wet connect lower connection assembly coupled to an uphole end of the lower completion [fig. 29 element 118, col. 5 L. 7-12, col. 7 L. 4-7]. Furthermore, Patel teaches that the tool comprises a remote monitoring and control module [fig. 29 element 1500, col. 24 L. 12-15 and L. 45-57]. Patel further teaches that a half wet connect upper connection assembly coupled to a downhole end of the remote monitoring and control module, the half wet connect upper connection assembly and the half wet connect lower connection assembly coupled together to form a full wet connect assembly [fig. 29 elements 118 and 1504, col. 5 L. 7-12, col. 7 L. 4-7, col. 24 L. 12-15]. Patel also teaches that the remote monitoring and control module is configured to perform a well test of a subterranean formation of a wellbore surrounding the lower completion prior to running an upper completion within the wellbore [col. 24 L. 9-15 and L. 45-57].
Patel, as applied in the rejection of claim 13 above, further teaches that the well test is performed using control lines extending from a surface of the wellbore to the lower completion [fig. 29 element 1502, col. 24 L. 45-57]. Patel does not teach not using control lines.
On the other hand, Patel596 teaches that the communication with the surface can be performed wirelessly without using control lines [fig. 5, par. 0036 L. 2-10, par. 0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Patel596’s teachings of using wireless communications in the tool taught by Patel because it will permit the downhole device to send and transmit data without control lines.
The combination of Patel and Patel596 teaches that a well test can be performed by receiving instructions from the surface [see Patel col. 24 L. 45-57], and that the communications can be wireless communications [see Patel596 par. 0036 L. 2-10, par. 0040]. These teachings mean that performing the well test of the subterranean formation using the downhole tool includes performing the well test without any control lines extending from a surface of the wellbore to the lower completion.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the lower completion includes one or more sliding sleeves (flow control devices), the remote monitoring and control module configured to move at least one of the one or more flow control devices between closed and open positions and perform the well test [see Patel col. 20 L. 64-67, col. 21 L. 13-14, col. 24 L. 45-57].
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the lower completion includes one or more downhole sensors, the remote monitoring and control module configured to interface with the one or more downhole sensors and perform the well test [see Patel col. 24 L. 45-57].
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the lower completion includes sliding sleeves (one or more flow control devices) and one or more downhole sensors, the remote monitoring and control module configured to move at least one of the one or more flow control devices between closed and open positions and interface with the one or more downhole sensors to perform the well test [see Patel col. 20 L. 64-67, col. 21 L. 13-14, col. 24 L. 45-57].
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches the claimed downhole tool. Patel also teaches a wellbore extending through one or more subterranean formations [see Patel fig. 29]. This means that Patel also teaches the claimed system.
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as shown in the rejection of claim 4 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as shown in the rejection of claim 5 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches the claimed downhole tool. Furthermore, Patel teaches that the method comprises forming a wellbore through one or more subterranean formations and positioning the downhole tool in the wellbore [see Patel fig. 29]. Also, Patel teaches that the method comprises performing a well test of the subterranean formation using the downhole tool [see Patel col. 24 L. 45-57].
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as applied in the rejection of claim 13 above, further teaches that the remote monitoring and control module is attached to the lower completion before the upper completion is deployed in order to perform the well test [see Patel col. 24 L. 9-15 and L. 45-57]. Also, Patel teaches that the upper completion, when deployed, can be connected to the lower completion [see Patel col. 5 L. 2-7]. These teachings mean that the method includes disconnecting the half wet connect upper connection assembly and attached remote monitoring and control module from the half wet connect lower connection assembly after performing the well test.
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as applied in the rejection of claim 14 above, further teaches that the remote monitoring and control module is attached to the lower completion before the upper completion is deployed in order to perform the well test [see Patel col. 24 L. 9-15 and L. 45-57]. Also, Patel teaches that the upper completion, when deployed, can be connected to the lower completion [see Patel col. 5 L. 2-7]. These teachings mean that the method includes connecting a second half wet connect upper connection assembly having an upper completion coupled thereto with the half wet connect lower connection assembly and the lower completion after disconnecting the half wet connect upper connection assembly and attached remote monitoring and control module from the half wet connect lower connection assembly.
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as applied in the rejection of claim 14 above, further teaches that the performing includes performing one or more flow tests on the subterranean formation as the one or more flow control devices move between the closed and open positions [see Patel col. 24 L. 45-57].
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as shown in the rejection of claim 4 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as applied in the rejection of claim 14 above, further teaches that the performing includes performing one or more flow tests on the subterranean formation using the one or more downhole sensors [see Patel col. 24 L. 45-57].
In regards to claim 21, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as shown in the rejection of claim 5 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 24, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the full wet connect assembly provides electrical coupling in the presence of fluids between the lower completion and the remote monitoring and control module [see Patel fig. 29 elements 118 and 1504, col. 5 L. 7-12, col. 7 L. 4-7]. This teaching means that the full wet connect assembly is configured to allow electrical communication between the lower completion and the remote monitoring and control module.
Furthermore, the combination teaches that a full wet connect assembly can also provide hydraulic communication [see Patel596 par. 0034 L. 8-23].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Patel596’s teachings of using the full wet connect assembly also for hydraulic communication in the tool taught by the combination because it will permit to also communicate hydraulic signals between the lower completion and the remote monitoring and control module
In regards to claim 25, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the remote monitoring and control module includes onboard power storage [see Patel col. 24 L. 24-29].
The combination does not explicitly teach that the power storage operates for at least 72 hours without recharge. However, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have use a power storage with the claimed capacity because it will permit the system to work for three days without the need to bring back the tool to the surface for recharging.
In regards to claim 26, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the lower completion includes a sand control screen and a gravel pack assembly [see Patel col. 7 L. 17-19, col. 15 L. 1-7].
In regards to claim 27, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the system permit real time monitoring and transmission of formation pressure to the surface from the remote monitoring and control module [see Patel col. 4 L. 32-39, col. 24 L. 34-36]. This teaching means that the remote monitoring and control module is configured to transmit formation pressure data to a surface receiver in real time.
In regards to claim 30, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the remote monitoring and control module is configured to store test data locally and download it when brought up to the surface (transmit it upon reconnection with the surface) [see Patel col. 24 L. 20-24].
In regards to claim 34, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that wherein the remote monitoring and control module is powered by a battery integrated into the monitoring and control module [see Patel col. 24 L. 24-29]. The combination does not explicitly recite that the battery is a battery pack. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a battery pack as a battery for the remote monitoring and control module because it will permit the module to function for a longer time without recharging.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 9, 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-8,056,619) hereinafter Patel in view of Patel (US-2011/0192596) hereinafter Patel596 as applied to claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8 and 16 above, and in further view of Patel (US-8,925,631) hereinafter Patel631.
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as applied in the rejection of claim 2 above, further teaches that the lower completion comprises one or more sliding sleeves (flow control devices) [see Patel col. 20 L. 64-67, col. 21 L. 13-14, col. 24 L. 45-57]. However, Patel does not teach that the one or more flow control devices are one or more active flow control devices.
On the other hand, Patel631 teaches that the one or more flow control devices can be active flow control devices [fig. 13 elements 138 and 114, col. 7 L. 28-31, col. 8 L. 57-63].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Patel631’s teachings of using active flow control devices in the tool taught by the combination because it will permit to better control flow during a well test.
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as applied in the rejection of claim 2 above, further teaches that the lower completion comprises a downhole packer [see Patel col. 7 L. 17-23, col. 11 L. 54-57, col. 24 L. 50-57]. However, Patel does not teach that the lower completion includes an uphole feedthrough packer.
On the other hand, Patel631 teaches that the lower completion includes an uphole feedthrough packer and a downhole packer [fig. 13 elements 144 (feedthrough packer) and 118 (downhole packer), col. 9 L. 14-20 and L. 28-31].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Patel631’s teachings of including a feedthrough packer in the tool taught by the combination because it will permit ton install control lines for the electronics that are included in the lower completion.
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Patel, Patel596 and Patel631, as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Patel, Patel596 and Patel631, as shown in the rejection of claim 6 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Patel, Patel596 and Patel631, as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 23 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-8,056,619) hereinafter Patel in view of Patel (US-2011/0192596) hereinafter Patel596 as applied to claim(s) 1 and 13 above, and in further view of Rayssiguier et al. (US-8,750,075).
In regards to claim 23, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the remote monitoring and control module includes wireless transceiver configured to communicate with a surface unit via wireless telemetry [see Patel596 fig. 5, par. 0036 L. 2-10, par. 0040]. However, the combination does not teach that the wireless transceiver is an acoustic transceiver.
On the other hand, Rayssiguier teaches that an acoustic transceiver can be used to transmit data wirelessly from/to a downhole location to/from the surface [col. 1 L. 33-36].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Rayssiguier’s teachings of using an acoustic transceiver to perform communication between a downhole location and the surface in the tool taught by the combination because acoustic communication will provide reliable wireless communication between the remote monitoring and control module and the surface unit.
In regards to claim 31, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the method comprises transmitting test results from the remote monitoring and control module to a surface receiver using wireless telemetry [see Patel col. 24 L. 34-36 and L. 45-57, see Patel596 par. 0036 L. 2-10, par. 0040]. However, the combination does not teach that the wireless telemetry is acoustic telemetry.
On the other hand, Rayssiguier teaches that an acoustic transceiver can be used to transmit data wirelessly from/to a downhole location to/from the surface [col. 1 L. 33-36].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Rayssiguier’s teachings of using an acoustic transceiver to perform communication between a downhole location and the surface in the method taught by the combination because acoustic communication will provide reliable wireless communication of the test results between the remote monitoring and control module and the surface unit.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-8,056,619) hereinafter Patel in view of Patel (US-2011/0192596) hereinafter Patel596 as applied to claim(s) 1 and 13 above, and in further view of Yusti et al. (AU-2010305458B2).
In regards to claim 32, the combination of Patel and Patel596, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the well test includes measuring formation pressure and temperature [see Patel col. 4 L. 32-39, col. 24 L. 34-36, L. 45-57]. However, the combination does not teach that the measurements are taken over a predetermined time interval.
On the other hand, Yusti teaches the concept of measuring temperature and pressure over a well test time interval [par. 0035a L. 9-10].This teaching means that the measurements are taken over a predetermined time interval.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Yusti’s teachings of taking measurements over a predetermined time interval in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to obtain temperature and pressure measurement only during the test.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688