DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to the communication(s) filed on 10/17/2024. Claims 1-22, of which claims 1, 15, 19, 21 are independent, were pending in this application and are considered below.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed [10/17/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
replace the phrase “well bore” (lines 2 and 10 of ¶[0031]; line 9 of ¶[0101]; lines 2-3 of ¶[0119]; line 17 of ¶[0123]) with the limitation “wellbore”. Appropriate correction is required.
replace the phrase “flow line” (line 6 of ¶[0028]; line 10 of ¶[0031]; two occurrence on lines 4 and 7 of ¶[0125]; line 5 of ¶[0126]; ) with the limitation “flowline”. Appropriate correction is required.
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
Claims 1-14 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
replace the phrase “well bore” (lines 1 and 3 of claim 1) with the limitation “wellbore”.
replace the phrase “flow line” (line 3 of claim 19) with the limitation “flowline”.
Claims 2-14 and 20are objected due to their dependency to the objected claims 1 and 19, correspondingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 USC § 35 USC § 112, second paragraph
Examiner Note: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) made technical changes to 35 U.S.C. § 112 that only apply to patent applications filed on or after on September 16, 2012.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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
Regarding claim 1, claim recites the limitation “reservoir and fluid conditions” (line 4 of claim 1), which is vague because it is not clear whether it is the same as or different from already recited limitation “reservoir and fluid conditions” (line 1 of claim 1). It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the reservoir and fluid conditions --.
Claim also recites the limitation “the data record” (lines 13 and 16 of claim 1), which is vague and indefinite. It is not clear whether the aforesaid term is referring to the encoded data record (line 8 of claim 1) or established data record (line 10 of claim 1), which leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite.
Claim also recites the limitation “pressure signals comprising the data record” (line 16 of claim 15– emphasis added), which term “comprising” makes it vague and indefinite, because claim later recites “decoding the pressure signals … to reveal the transmitted data record” (line 17 of claim 1 – truncated, emphasis added). “Comprising” means the item contains physical , structural elements (e.g., a device comprising a processor and a memory). However, “encoding” is a transformation, i.e., “data record” is not physically “contained” inside “pressure signals” (like e.g., pieces in a box); rather pressure signals’ characteristics (e.g., phase, amplitude, or frequency) are modulated or encoded based on “data record”.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, claims recite the limitation “a downhole tool” (line 13 of claim 1; line 7 of claim 15), which are vague because it is not clear whether they are the same as or different from already recited limitations “a downhole tool” (line 3 of claim 1; line 1 of claim 15). It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the downhole tool--.
Regarding claim 15, claim recites the limitation “the transmitted command information” (line 10 of claim 15), There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the command information--.
Claim also recites the limitation “the perturbation signals comprising command information” (line 4 of claim 15 – emphasis added), which term “comprising” makes it vague and indefinite, because claim later recites “decode the perturbation signals and reveal the transmitted command information” (line 9 of claim 15 – emphasis added). “Comprising” means the item contains physical , structural elements (e.g., a device comprising a processor and a memory). However, “encoding” is a transformation, i.e., “command information” is not physically “contained” inside “perturbation signals” (like e.g., pieces in a box); rather perturbation signals’ characteristics (e.g., phase, amplitude, or frequency) are modulated or encoded based on “command information”.
Regarding claim 19, claim recites the limitation “propagating the primary perturbation signals using a transmission protocol that repeats perturbation signals over several periods” (line 11 of claim 19), which is vague and indefinite, because it is not clear whether repeating perturbation signal are the same as or different from propagating primary perturbation signals. It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --propagating the primary perturbation signals using a transmission protocol that repeats the primary perturbation signals over several periods--.
Claim also recites the limitation “the repeated signal energy” (line 14 of claim 19). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the repeated primary perturbation signals energy--.
Claim further recites the limitation “measuring induced perturbation signals in the annulus according to a complimentary protocol that accumulates the repeated signal energy in the channel for each bit and allows the underlying data” (line 13 of claim 19), which terms “the channel for each bit” and “the underlying data” makes it vague and indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim and it is not clear what terms “channel for each bit” (which channel and what bit is?) and “underlying data” (which data?) is referring to, which leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 21, claim recites the limitation “repeating portions of the signals from the signal source to allow a receiver to repeatedly receive a version of the same transmission” (line 9 of claim 21), which term “version” makes it vague and indefinite. It is not clear what term “version” is referring to. Is it referring to an identical replica, a downsampled version, an encrypted version, or a packet with the same payload but a different header? Furthermore, the claim mention “the same transmission” without an antecedent basis. The term “to allow a receiver to repeatedly receive” is purely functional and describe the goal rather than the actual steps that cause the action.
Claim recites the limitation “using the repetition to correct, confirm, or accumulate information regarding the received signal” (line 9 of claim 21), which is vague and indefinite. For instance, let’s look at the limitation “using the repetition to correct … the received signal”, which is indefinite because the boundary of what hardware or step performs the correction is unknown. It is not clear how it is correcting it. Is it combining packet of repeatedly received propagated baseband and frequency signals (like HARQ)? Is it taking the average of signals? The aforesaid issue also apply to limitations “using the repetition to … confirm … the received signal” and “using the repetition to correct … accumulate information regarding the received signal”, which leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 22, claim recites the limitation “the noise zone comprises a length of well starting at the bubble point and extending from there to the surface” (line 1 of claim 22), which terms “the bubble point” and “the surface” makes it vague and indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim and it is not clear what term “surface” is referring to which leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-14, 16-18, and 20, claims are rejected due to their dependency to the rejected claims 1, 15, and 19, correspondingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The attention of the applicant is drawn to the fact that the application may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject matter which extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed. In order to facilitate the examination of the conformity of the amended application, the applicant is respectfully requested to clearly identify the amendments carried out, irrespective of whether they concern amendments by addition, replacement or deletion, and to indicate the passages of the application as filed on which these amendments are based.
Reliance on the US Pre-Grant Publication (PG PUB) of this application, which is not part of the image file wrapper of the patent application, in the prosecution is improper. All references in the reply to the office action are to be made to the latest version on record of the patent application as filed not as published. The latest version on record of the patent application means the patent application as originally filed and modified by previously entered amendment(s).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nader Bolourchi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8064. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 to 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S. Wang, SPE can be reached on (571) 272-9018. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO web-based Video Conferencing and Collaboration Tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. See MPEP § 502.03. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122 and will not initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail. The internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization may be submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.
The following is a sample authorization form, which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization:
“The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with any practitioner of record or acting in a representative capacity in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail is hereby withdrawn.”
To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdraw of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, filed via EFS-Web. The Form is available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA, or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nader Bolourchi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights