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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the preliminary amendment filed on 11/06/2024.
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 “groove connected to the first upstream opening” in 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract includes multiple paragraphs. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the title is not descriptive. A new title that would include the inventive features of the claimed invention is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the broad limitation “a poly ketone polymer” and also the narrower limitation of “in particular polyether ether ketone”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired (see MPEP § 2173.05(c)). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claims 10-13, the phrase “the rock properties measurement system” in the claims lacks proper antecedent basis. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliland et al. (Pat. No. US 5,297,420) (hereafter Gilliland) in view of Hara et al. (Pat. No. US 9,696,251) (hereafter Hara).
Regarding claim 1, Gilliland teaches a rock properties measurement cell, configured for receiving a rock sample to carry out inner structure imaging of at least a fluid contained in said rock sample, the measurement cell comprising:
a monolithic porous barrier element, permeable to a first fluid and impervious to a second fluid (i.e., a water-permeable and gas-impermeable plug 22) (see Fig. 1), comprising:
an upstream segment of a first diameter (i.e., upstream face of plug 22) (see Fig. 1), the upstream segment defining an upstream face configured to cooperate with the rock sample (i.e., via plug 21) (see Fig. 1),
a downstream segment of a second diameter (i.e., downstream face of plug 22) (see Fig. 1), the upstream and downstream segments defining together a downstream face opposed to the upstream face (see Fig. 1), and
a bypass connecting the upstream face and the downstream face through the upstream and the downstream segments (i.e., fluid outlet 23 passes from Berea sandstone plug 21 through sleeve 11 and pressure vessel 12) (see Fig. 1);
a downstream diffuser (i.e., plug 17) (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a first downstream opening, delimiting, together with the bypass, a first channel configured for retrieving first and/or second fluid from the rock sample (i.e., fluid outlet 23) (see Fig. 1),
a second downstream opening forming a second channel, opening facing on the downstream face of the upstream segment of the porous barrier element and being configured for retrieving first fluid from the rock sample (i.e., outlet line 15) (see Fig. 1),
an upstream diffuser (i.e., plug 16) (see Fig. 1) comprising a first upstream opening configured for guiding a second fluid into the rock sample (i.e., fluid inlet 14) (see Fig. 1); and
a sleeve arranged around the upstream diffuser, the downstream diffuser and the porous barrier element, the upstream diffuser, the porous barrier element and the sleeve delimiting together a measurement chamber configured for receiving the rock sample (i.e., sleeve 11) (see Fig. 1); but does not explicitly teach the barrier element comprising a downstream segment of a second diameter smaller than the first diameter.
Regarding the barrier element, Hara teaches
a monolithic porous barrier element (i.e., water vapor permeable support 2) (see Fig. 4), comprising:
an upstream segment of a first diameter, the upstream segment defining an upstream face configured to cooperate with the rock sample (i.e., upstream side of the support 2) (see Fig. 4),
a downstream segment of a second diameter smaller than the first diameter (i.e., downstream side of the support 2 having a center projection with a diameter smaller than the flat upstream side of the support 2) (see Fig. 4), the upstream and downstream segments defining together a downstream face opposed to the upstream face (see Fig. 4). In view of the teaching of Hara, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to have added a barrier element shaped for accommodating the sample in the sleeve, in order to improve the performance of the device. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)), and a change in shape is a matter of choice which one having of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B)). In this case, the combination of Gilliland and Hara teaches that the bypass line can be formed with the permeable and semi-permeable plugs.
Regarding claim 3, Gilliland teaches a confinement housing arranged around the sleeve (i.e., pressure vessel 12) (see Fig. 1), the confinement housing being configured for receiving confinement fluid to apply pressure to the sleeve around the upstream diffuser, the downstream diffuser, the porous barrier element and the rock sample received in the measurement chamber (i.e., a pressure is applied to the sleeve 11 and hence to the core sample 10) (see Column 4, line 64, to Column 5, line 12).
Regarding claim 4, Gilliland teaches that the confinement housing comprises: a upstream cap comprising a first upstream tubing fluidically connected to the first upstream opening (i.e., upstream end of vessel 12) (see Fig. 1), a downstream cap (i.e., downstream end of vessel 12) (see Fig. 1) comprising: a first downstream tubing fluidically connected to the first downstream opening (i.e., for outlet line 23) (see Fig. 1), a second downstream tubing fluidically connected to the second downstream opening (i.e., for outlet line 15) (see Fig. 1), one of the upstream and downstream cap comprising a confinement tubing, configured for guiding confinement fluid into the confinement housing (i.e., via confining pressure and temperature control opening) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Gilliand as modified by Hara as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that that the confinement housing is made of a poly ketone polymer, in particular polyether ether ketone. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable material for the confinement housing. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 6, Gilliland teaches that pressure sleeve 11, preferably natural or synthetic rubber, which is in the form of a cylinder surrounding the core sample (see Column 4, line 64, to Column 5, line 12); but Gilliland as modified by Hara as disclosed above does not explicitly teach that the sleeve is made of fluorocarbon-based fluoroelastomer. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable material for the sleeve. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 7, Gilliland as modified by Hara as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach an inner diameter of the sleeve is comprised between 8 mm and 75 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the sleeve having any size suitable for the sample and the device. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 8, Gilliland teaches that a downstream side of the upstream diffuser comprises at least a groove connected to the first upstream opening, the groove being configured to guide the second fluid along an inlet face of the rock sample (i.e., fluid inlet line 14 passes through plug 16) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Gilliland teaches that the system comprises a feeding device, configured for feeding the second fluid in the first upstream opening (i.e., gas supply 35) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Gilliland teaches the system comprises: a first valve, fluidically connected to first downstream opening, and configured for selectively freeing or blocking the first downstream opening (i.e., valve 39) (see Fig. 1), and a second valve, fluidically connected to second downstream opening, and configured for selectively freeing or blocking the second downstream opening (i.e., valve 38) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Gilliland teaches that the system comprises an inner structure fluid imaging device arranged at an outside of the rock properties measurement cell (i.e., X-ray energy provided by the X-ray tube 40 passes through the pressure housing 12, sleeve 11 and core sample 10 and falls on the detector array 41. Rotation and indexing of core sample 10 within the X-ray fan beam 42 is provided by the gantry 43. After a desired number of scans are completed for each sample slice, the core is indexed to place the next sample slice within the path of the X-ray fan beam 42. Signals from detector array 41 are applied through data processing unit 44 to display 45 where the CT images are viewed) (see Column 5, line 41, to Column 6, line 28).
Regarding claim 13, Gilliland teaches that the inner structure imaging device is a microtomography imaging device (i.e., X-ray energy provided by the X-ray tube 40 passes through the pressure housing 12, sleeve 11 and core sample 10 and falls on the detector array 41. Rotation and indexing of core sample 10 within the X-ray fan beam 42 is provided by the gantry 43. After a desired number of scans are completed for each sample slice, the core is indexed to place the next sample slice within the path of the X-ray fan beam 42. Signals from detector array 41 are applied through data processing unit 44 to display 45 where the CT images are viewed) (see Column 5, line 41, to Column 6, line 28) or nuclear magnetic resonance imaging device.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliland et al. (Pat. No. US 5,297,420) (hereafter Gilliland) in view of Hara et al. (Pat. No. US 9,696,251) (hereafter Hara) and in further view of Longeron et al. (Pat. No. US 5,610,524) (hereafter Longeron)
Regarding claim 2, Gilliland as modified by Hara as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the downstream diffuser defines a cavity, the downstream segment of the monolithic porous barrier element being received in the cavity, the measurement cell comprising a sealing gasket arranged around the downstream segment of the porous element, between said downstream segment and the downstream diffuser.
Regarding the cavity and the gasket, Longeron teaches that that the downstream diffuser defines a cavity, the downstream segment of the monolithic porous barrier element being received in the cavity (i.e., flanges 3 and 4 having a cavity to accommodate membranes 12 and 13 and side pieces 7 and 8, respectively) (see Fig. 2), the measurement cell comprising a sealing gasket arranged around the downstream segment of the porous element, between said downstream segment and the downstream diffuser (i.e., seal A) (see Fig. 2). In view of the teaching of Longeron, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the gasket and the cavity to form fluid-tight connection in order to further improve the performance of the device.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliland et al. (Pat. No. US 5,297,420) (hereafter Gilliland) in view of Hara et al. (Pat. No. US 9,696,251) (hereafter Hara) and in further view of Al-Qasim et al. (Pat. No. US 11,714,029) (hereafter Al-Qasim)
Regarding claim 9, Gilliland as modified by Hara as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the upstream diffuser comprises a second upstream opening, configured for fluidically connecting the rock sample with a pressure measurement device. However, Al-Qasim teaches that the upstream diffuser comprises a second upstream opening, configured for fluidically connecting the rock sample with a pressure measurement device (i.e., fiber optic pressure sensors 120 comprising optical fiber inserted in ferrule 124 through outer end plug 118a) (see Column 6, line 1, to Column 7, line 61). In view of the teaching of Al-Qasim, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to have added pressure transducer to monitor the pressure drop inside the sleeve in order to improve the device performance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights