DETAILED ACTION
In the Non-Final Rejection mailed 9/17/2025:
Claims 1-17 were cancelled.
Claims 18-22 were rejected.
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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed 12/15/2025 has been entered:
Claims 1-17 are cancelled.
Claims 18-22 are active.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it is not feasible to combine Thornberry’s technique with Holdcroft’s procedure to arrive at the claimed invention, since Thornberry is concerned with a method of measuring the temperature in a borehole using a device that does not contain electronics in the borehole, while Holdcroft discloses the use of a sensor lowered into a borehole to detect hot hole conditions. Applicant further notes that lowering the crystal of Thornberry and then retrieving it would not be possible once the borehole is filled with emulsion explosive, and that Thornberry also requires on-site frequency sweeping using external electronics since Thornberry deliberately removes electronics from the borehole environment. This contrasts with the present application, which uses a self-contained electronic detonator that includes, onboard, the necessary electronics for temperature measurement embedded directly therein. Further, applicant argues that implementation of the combination of Thornberry and Holdcroft would require an external analyzer, wiring, and a crystal located outside the detonator body, which is fundamentally different from and even contrary to the present application, which claims temperature-measurement components which are integral with the detonator in the borehole so that temperature can be measured repeatedly or continuously. Applicant further argues that the present invention does not rely on detecting a resonant frequency of a temperature-sensitive crystal and, instead, monitors the frequency of an onboard oscillator and compares it with stored calibration data to determine borehole temperature. Applicant further argues that claim 18 requires three frequency-based measurements, whereas Thornberry only obtains a single temperature reading at the crystal’s resonant frequency. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Holdcroft discloses the claimed invention except that the device used to determine the borehole temperature is disclosed only as a temperature sensor, as opposed to applicant’s claimed invention, which requires establishing a frequency versus temperature relationship of an oscillator based on frequency and temperature measurements taken prior to deployment, and then deploying the oscillator into the borehole to determine the temperature within the borehole from the established frequency versus temperature relationship. Thornberry, comparatively, teaches calibrating an oscillator, prior to deployment into a borehole, with the appropriate frequency and temperature relationship data, and then deploying the oscillator into the borehole to measure the temperature in a borehole from the established frequency and temperature relationship data. Combined, Holdcroft and Thornberry, therefore, would teach the claimed invention for the reasons specified in the previous rejection. Applicant’s argument that Thornberry and Holdcroft are not combinable, since Thornberry is concerned with a method of measuring the temperature in a borehole using a device that does not contain electronics in the borehole, is irrelevant, since Thornberry is concerned specifically with the oscillator/temperature measurement device, which is distinct from the detonator. Said another way, Thornberry requires only the exclusion of electronic components from the temperature measurement device, and does not require the exclusion of electronic components in the detonator, specifically. To circumvent this distinction, applicant then argues that the claimed invention requires a self-contained electronic detonator that includes, onboard, the necessary electronics for temperature measurement embedded directly therein so that temperature can be measured repeatedly or continuously. However, no such limitations are recited in any of the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s argument that lowering the crystal of Thornberry and then retrieving it would not be possible once the borehole is filled with emulsion explosive is unclear, since in each of Thornberry, Holdcroft, and applicant’s invention, the detonator/oscillator/temperature measurement device is inserted into the borehole prior to the insertion of emulsion explosive, and nowhere is it claimed or required that the detonator/oscillator/temperature measurement device is subsequently retrieved from the emulsion explosive. That Thornberry also requires on-site frequency sweeping using external electronics since Thornberry deliberately removes electronics from the borehole environment is irrelevant to the rejection at hand, since the claimed invention does not limit or exclude this functionality, and since Thornberry, again, was used merely as a teaching reference to show that it is known to utilize a pre-calibrated oscillator as the temperature measurement device. Finally, applicant’s argument that claim 18 requires three frequency-based measurements, whereas Thornberry only obtains a single temperature reading at the crystal’s resonant frequency, is inaccurate. Claim 18 requires only one frequency-based measurement after deployment into the borehole. The first two claimed frequency-based measurements occur at controlled temperature conditions prior to deployment into the borehole. Thornberry explicitly teaches this, stating that the temperature related to the resonance of the crystal can be determined based on frequency calibration data, which is used to create polynomial curves that directly relate to the resonant frequency to temperature, and calibration measurements (performed in a lab) can be made such that the temperature parameter can be calculated based on the resonance frequency and a polynomial fit calibration engine (col. 7 lines 48-64). Thornberry extrapolates further, stating that the crystal may be placed in a temperature-controlled environment so that the frequency is determined for various temperatures (for example, from 0 to 400 degrees), and this data is then stored in the computing device and one or more polynomials are generated that describe the correlation between the temperature and the frequency of the crystal (col. 8 lines 1-11).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 18, the comma (“,”) at the end of line 5 should be replaced with a colon (“:”), since each of the steps of using an oscillator, using said first and second frequency, and storing said relationship, occur prior to deployment of the detonator in the borehole; the word “and” should be inserted at the end of line 16; the comma (“,”) at the end of line 17 should be replaced with a colon (“:”), since each of the steps of obtaining the third frequency measurement, using said frequency versus temperature relationship, and using the temperature of the oscillator, occur subsequent to the placement of the emulsion explosive into the borehole; and a comma (“,”) should be inserted at the end of line 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holdcroft et al. (US 2011/0006585), herein referenced ‘Holdcroft’, and further in view of Thornberry et al. (US 10450855), herein referenced ‘Thornberry’.
Regarding claim 18, Holdcroft discloses a method (10) of monitoring a temperature (par. 31) in a borehole (14) in which a detonator (18) is deployed, the method comprising:
deploying the detonator in the borehole (par. 29);
placing an emulsion explosive (28) into the borehole surrounding the detonator (par. 35); and
subsequent to the placement of the emulsion explosive into the borehole:
obtaining a measurement (par. 7 and 11) from a temperature sensor (22);
using said measurement to determine a temperature of the temperature sensor (par. 31); and
using the temperature to assess whether the temperature in the borehole is indicative of a hot-hole condition (par. 7-8 and 33).
Holdcroft does not expressly teach wherein the method further comprises: under temperature-controlled conditions prior to deployment of the detonator in the borehole: using an oscillator, which functions at a frequency which is temperature-dependent, to determine a first frequency measurement which is based on the frequency of oscillation of the oscillator at a first temperature and a second frequency measurement which is based on the frequency of oscillation of the oscillator at a second temperature, using said first and second frequency measurements to establish a frequency versus temperature relationship for the oscillator, and storing said frequency versus temperature relationship in a memory unit in the detonator; and wherein the temperature sensor is the oscillator, such that the step of obtaining a measurement from a temperature sensor comprises obtaining a third frequency measurement which is based on the frequency of oscillation of the oscillator, and such that the step of using said measurement to determine a temperature of the temperature sensor comprises using said third frequency measurement to determine a temperature of the oscillator based on the frequency versus temperature relationship.
Thornberry teaches a system (100) and method for measuring the temperature in a well (110) comprising: prior to deployment of an oscillator (Fig. 3; col. 4 lines 57-66) which functions as a temperature sensor (142) into the well (Fig. 1), determining a first measurement which is based on the frequency of the oscillator at a first temperature and a second measurement which is based on the frequency of the oscillator at a second temperature, and using said first and second measurements to establish a frequency versus temperature relationship for the oscillator and storing said frequency versus temperature relationship in a memory unit (col. 7 lines 51-57; col. 8 lines 1-11; col. 9 lines 27-34); and, after deployment of the oscillator in the well, obtaining a third measurement of the frequency of the oscillator to determine a temperature of the oscillator based on the frequency versus temperature relationship to determine the temperature in the borehole (col. 7 lines 48-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the temperature sensor used to measure the temperature in the borehole of Holdcroft to be an oscillator which was previously calibrated with the appropriate frequency and temperature relationship data as taught by Thornberry with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a reliable and inexpensive temperature gauge that can withstand the high temperatures and pressures present in a well (Thornberry; col. 2 lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 19, Thornberry, as applied above, discloses wherein the first and second temperatures span a temperature at which all or a part of the detonator is assembled under the temperature-controlled conditions (col. 8 lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 20, Thornberry, as applied above, discloses wherein the method includes the step of extracting data on the first and second frequency measurements from the memory unit with a controller (130, 134) which is in communication with the detonator.
Regarding claim 21, Thornberry, as applied above, discloses wherein the step of using said first and second frequency measurements to establish the frequency versus temperature relationship for the oscillator comprises using the controller to implement a curve-fitting technique to establish said frequency versus temperature relationship from at least the first and second frequency measurements and from the first and second temperatures (col. 8 lines 1-26).
Regarding claim 22, Thornberry, as applied above, discloses wherein the controller is physically separate from the detonator (Fig. 1; controller 130 being located at the surface 112).
Conclusion
Claims 1-17 are cancelled. Claims 18-22 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 BENJAMIN S GOMBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-4802. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Troy Chambers can be reached at (571)272-6874. 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.
/Troy Chambers/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3641
/BENJAMIN S. GOMBERG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3641