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, second cross-axial accelerometer; second cross-axial magnetic field sensor; a processor; a rotary pulser; and a mud pulser; 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 9, “the wellbore” should be change to --a wellbore-- in order to avoid an insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “The rotary steerable tool” should be change to --The downhole tool--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
A)Regarding claims 1 and 15, the claims state: “…using the cross-axial accelerometers and the cross-axial magnetic field sensors to make cross-axial gravitational field measurements and cross-axial magnetic field measurements while the downhole tool is deployed in the wellbore…” The specification does not in such full, clear, concise described how the accelerometers and the magnetic field sensors able to make gravitational field measurements and field measurements as claimed.
For examination purposes, the examiner is taking a position that the items above are producing or providing measurements and not making measurements as claimed. Since claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and claims 16-20 depend from claim 15, they also are rejected as indicated above.
B)Regarding claim 8, the claim states: “…the first and second cross-axial magnetic field sensors in sensory range of magnetic flux…” The specification does not in such full, clear, concise described what is the “sensory range” that is being used.
For examination purposes, the examiner is given the broadest interpretation as best understood. Since claims 9-14 depend from claim 8, they are also rejected as indicated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas which are not integrated into a judicial exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “…removing the interference bias form the magnetic field measurements…” is insignificant extra-solution activity.
a)Regarding claim 1,
Step 1: Statutory Category?: Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?: Yes, the claim recites: “…computing an angle X from the cross-axial gravitational field measurements and the cross-axial magnetic field measurements made during a first time period during which there is no EM interference; estimating magnetic tool face values for the cross-axial magnetic field measurements made during a second time period during which there is EM interference, the estimating using the computed angle X and the corresponding cross-axial gravitational field measurements made during the second time period; using the estimated magnetic tool face values to estimate an interference bias in the magnetic field measurements made during the second time period…” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind which can be done by a human or with a pen and paper.
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the claim integrated into a practical application?: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because nothing in the claim utilizes or implements the above abstract idea into any practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim provides an inventive concept?: No. The claim limitations “…removing the interference bias form the magnetic field measurements…” is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
b)Dependent Claims 2-7, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the additional recited limitations(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea because the additional limitations(s) are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering and calculation.
Regarding Claims 2-3, accelerometers and magnetic field sensors are orthogonal, circulating drilling fluid and actuating a solenoid, are considered more than the abstract idea, but not a practical application because it insignificant pre-solution activity necessary for the abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 4-7, computing, using averaging, and subtracting are abstract steps as discussed above. The claims have been considered ineligible under 35 USC 101 by reviewing both the limitations themselves and as ordered combinations of elements which do not amount to a practical application of the abstract limitations.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas which are not integrated into a judicial exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “…removing the interference bias form the magnetic field measurements…” is insignificant extra-solution activity.
b)Regarding claim 8,
Step 1: Statutory Category?: Yes. The claim recites a downhole tool comprising a processor; therefore, it is a machine.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?: Yes, the claim recites: “…compute an angle X from the cross-axial gravitational field measurements and the cross-axial magnetic field measurements made during a first time period during which there is no EM interference; estimate magnetic tool face values for the cross-axial magnetic field measurements made during a second time period during which there is EM interference, the estimating using the computed angle X and the corresponding cross-axial gravitational field measurements made during the second time period; use the estimated magnetic tool face values to estimate an interference bias in the magnetic field measurements made during the second time period…” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations to execute an algorithm which is an abstract idea falls into the “mathematical concepts” grouping.
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the claim integrated into a practical application?: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because nothing in the claim utilizes or implements the above abstract idea into any practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim provides an inventive concept?: No. The claim limitations “…removing the interference bias form the magnetic field measurements…” is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
b)Dependent Claims 9-14, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the additional recited limitations(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea because the additional limitations(s) are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering and calculation.
Regarding Claims 10-11, steering actuators and mud pulser are considered more than the abstract idea, but not a practical application because it insignificant pre-solution activity necessary for the abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 9 and 12-14, computing, using averaging, and subtracting are abstract steps as discussed above. The claims have been considered ineligible under 35 USC 101 by reviewing both the limitations themselves and as ordered combinations of elements which do not amount to a practical application of the abstract limitations.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas which are not integrated into a judicial exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “…monitoring the intermittent source of electromagnetic interference…” is insignificant extra-solution activity.
a)Regarding claim 15,
Step 1: Statutory Category?: Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?: Yes, the claim recites: “…setting a compensated magnetic field measurement equal to the magnetic field measurement when the intermittent source of electromagnetic interference is inactive; extracting an interference signal from the magnetic field measurement using the measured cross-axial gravitational field measurement when the source of the electromagnetic interference is active; comparing the extracted interference signal with a threshold; setting the compensated magnetic field measurement equal to the magnetic field measurement when the interference signal is less than the threshold; and setting the compensated magnetic field measurement equal to the previous compensated magnetic field measurement when the interference signal is greater than the threshold.” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind which can be done by a human or with a pen and paper.
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the claim integrated into a practical application?: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because nothing in the claim utilizes or implements the above abstract idea into any practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim provides an inventive concept?: No. The claim limitations “…removing the interference bias form the magnetic field measurements…” is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, claim 15 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
b)Dependent Claims 16-20, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the additional recited limitations(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea because the additional limitations(s) are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering and calculation.
Regarding Claim 16, circulating drilling fluid and actuating a solenoid, are considered more than the abstract idea, but not a practical application because it insignificant pre-solution activity necessary for the abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 17-20, computing, using averaging, and subtracting are abstract steps as discussed above. The claims have been considered ineligible under 35 USC 101 by reviewing both the limitations themselves and as ordered combinations of elements which do not amount to a practical application of the abstract limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 8-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whitmore et al (WO 2021/016309 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
670
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
239
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Whitmore et al disclose [see Figs. 1-2 above] A downhole tool (drill string 30) comprising: first and second cross-axial accelerometers (accelerometers 65Ax & 65Ay) and first and second cross-axial magnetic field sensors (magnetometers 67Bx & 67By) deployed in a downhole tool body (near-bit sensor sub 60), the first and second cross-axial magnetic field sensors (67Bx, 67By) in sensory range of magnetic flux emanating from an intermittent source of electromagnetic interference; a processor [not shown but see controller in paragraphs [0055] for details] configured to: cause the cross-axial accelerometers (65Ax & 65Ay) and the cross-axial magnetic field sensors (67Bx & 67By) to make cross-axial gravitational field measurements and cross-axial magnetic field measurements while the downhole tool (30) is deployed in a wellbore [shown but not numbered]; compute an angle X from the cross-axial gravitational field measurements and the cross-axial magnetic field measurements made during a first time period during which there is no EM interference [see paragraphs [0003], [0029], [0039], [0041] & [0043] for details]; estimate magnetic tool face values for the cross-axial magnetic field measurements made during a second time period during which there is EM interference using the computed angle X and the corresponding cross-axial gravitational field measurements made during the second time period [see paragraphs [0034]-[0037] for details]; use the estimated magnetic tool face values to estimate an interference bias in the magnetic field measurements made during the second time period; and remove the interference bias from the magnetic field measurements made during the second time period to compute compensated cross-axial magnetic field measurements [see paragraphs [0006], [0039], [0043] & [0045] for details].
Regarding claim 9, Whitmore et al disclose wherein the downhole tool (30) is a rotary steerable tool and the processor [not shown but see controller in paragraphs [0055] for details] is further configured to: compute a wellbore azimuth using the compensated magnetic field measurements [see paragraphs [0005]-[0006], [0037], [0042] & [0045] for details]; and change a direction of the drilling in response to the computed wellbore azimuth [see paragraph [0054] for details].
Regarding claim 10, Whitmore et al disclose a rotary steerable tool body configured to support a plurality of steering actuators, the steering actuators configured to change the direction of drilling [not shown but see paragraphs [0031], the end of [0042], the end of [0051] & [0054] for details].
Regarding claim 11, Whitmore et al disclose a mud pulser, wherein a solenoid actuated valve in the mud pulser is the intermittent source of EM interference [not shown but see paragraphs [0025] & [0053 ] for details].
Regarding claim 14, Whitmore et al disclose wherein the processor [not shown but see controller in paragraphs [0055] for details] is configured to subtract the interference bias from the each of the cross-axial magnetic field measurements made during a period of EM interference [see paragraph [0043] for details].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMELE M HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1960. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Lee E Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/JERMELE M HOLLINGTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights