DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 5/27/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Office action lacks consistency since a previous response found arguments against a rejection based on Ross alone to be persuasive against amended claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the current rejection under Jones in view of Ross, based on applicant’s amendment, does not appear to admit Ross lacks any feature relied on in the rejection.
Applicant also argues that Ross’s flow line gauge 54, as relied on in the rejection (for the flow line sensor claimed), is labelled as a flow line gauge 54 in Ross and not located not in the “probe module”, and that there is no “probe module” in Ross. This argument is not persuasive since as best understood by the examiner, a “gauge” would be considered a “sensor” by one of ordinary skill in the art, and further it does not appear any “probe module” is recited in the claims. Applicant further argues that Ross does not disclose calculating a noise, as claimed, but this argument is not persuasive since as best understood by the examiner, such a difference of the two pressure measurements would inherently be calculated by Ross. Ross describes a pressure loss calculation in paragraph 48 where pressure loss is determined by “a difference” between measured pressures. Paragraph 48 also discloses that pressure losses could be calculated elsewhere with the other pressure measurements, which is considered to inherently disclose that these pressure measurements would also be similarly calculated (as involving a difference). Therefore, Ross remains considered to a method including disposing a tool including a probe section and calculating a noise, wherein the noise comprises a difference between a pressure measurement at a probe pressure sensor and a pressure measurement at a tool pressure sensor (paragraph 48 as using flowline pressure to identify pressure loses).
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.
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.
Claims 1-15, and 18-22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 8 and 15 each recite “one or more probes are on opposite side of the two stabilizers” which is indefinite as it is not clear what the probes are “opposite” from. It appears these claims should recite that the one or more probes are on an opposite side of the probe section from the at least two stabilizers (as in fig 6). The remaining claims are indefinite as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
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) 1-15, and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 2020/0284140) in view of Ross et al. (US 2011/0114310).
In regard to claim 1, Jones et al. disclose a method comprising: disposing a tool into a borehole, the tool disposed on a drill string or conveyance, wherein the tool comprises: a probe section (as in fig 3) comprising: at least two stabilizers (328, 330) to hold the tool in place in a formation; one or more probes (318, 320) that extend into the formation, wherein the one or more probes are on opposite side of the two stabilizers (as in fig 3); one or more probes channels (322, 324 as in fig 3) that connect the one or more probes to a prove fluid passageway (336) though one or more probe valves (332 as in fig 3); a pump (326) connected to the probe fluid passageway; a probe pressure sensor (338) disposed on the probe fluid passageway; a bubble point valve (334) that connects the probe fluid passageway to a tool fluid passageway; and a tool pressure sensor (308, as in paragraph 25) disposed on the tool fluid passageway; and a flow-control pump-out section comprising a bidirectional pump (312) connected to the tool fluid passageway; taking a pressure measurement at the probe pressure sensor (inherent to providing sensor as above); and taking a pressure measurement at the tool pressure sensor (inherent to providing sensor as above). Jones et al. do not disclose calculating a noise, wherein the noise comprises a difference between the pressure measurement at the probe pressure sensor and the pressure measurement at the tool pressure sensor.
Ross et al. disclose a method comprising disposing a tool into a borehole (as in fig 1 or 2) and calculating a noise, wherein the noise comprises a difference between a pressure measurement at a probe pressure sensor (54) and a pressure measurement at a tool pressure sensor (56; paragraph 48 as using flowline pressure to identify pressure loses; also paragraph 52-54 as determining pressure disturbance as correlating between measurements involves determining a difference). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the method of Jones et al. with the noise calculating steps of Ross et al. in order to determine the noise in the measurements of Jones et al. and provide more accurate data.
In regard to claim 2, Ross et al. disclose wherein the noise comprises a common system noise (paragraph 54 at least).
In regard to claim 3, Ross et al. disclose wherein the common system noise is from a tool vibration, a gauge-related noise or another tool (paragraph 54 at least)
In regard to claim 4, Ross et al. disclose wherein the noise is from a mud pump rate, a pulser, and a bit position (inherent as noise would include all noise within system).
In regard to claim 5, Ross et al. disclose wherein the noise is from a mud thickness and mobility of the formation (inherent as noise would include all noise within system).
In regard to claim 6, Ross et al. disclose indicating the one or more probes are not in fluid communication with the formation when the difference is null (inherent to correlating measurements such that noise is “null” would include not being in fluid communication with formation as not being in use).
In regard to claim 7, Ross et al. disclose identifying a type of fluid within the tool fluid passageway based on pressure drop during a pressure drawdown (paragraph 41 at least where compressible fluid can be identified).
In regard to claim 8, Jones et al. disclose a method comprising: disposing a tool into a borehole, the tool disposed on a drill string or conveyance, wherein the tool comprises: a probe section (as in fig 3) comprising: at least two stabilizers (328, 330) to hold the tool in place in a formation; one or more probes (318, 320) that extend into the formation, wherein the one or more probes are on opposite side of the two stabilizers (as in fig 3); one or more probes channels (322, 324 as in fig 3) that connect the one or more probes to a prove fluid passageway (336) though one or more probe valves (332 as in fig 3); a pump (326) connected to the probe fluid passageway; a probe pressure sensor (338) disposed on the probe fluid passageway; a bubble point valve (334) that connects the probe fluid passageway to a tool fluid passageway; and a tool pressure sensor (308, as in paragraph 25) disposed on the tool fluid passageway; and a flow-control pump-out section comprising a bidirectional pump (312) connected to the tool fluid passageway; extending the one or more probes into an inner surface of the borehole (paragraph 24); closing the bubble point valve (paragraph 26); taking a pressure measurement at the probe pressure sensor (inherent to providing sensor as above); and taking a pressure measurement at the tool pressure sensor (inherent to providing sensor as above). Jones et al. do not disclose calculating a noise, wherein the noise comprises a difference between the pressure measurement at the probe pressure sensor and the pressure measurement at the tool pressure sensor.
Ross et al. disclose a method comprising disposing a tool into a borehole (as in fig 1 or 2) and calculating a noise, wherein the noise comprises a difference between a pressure measurement at a probe pressure sensor (54) and a pressure measurement at a tool pressure sensor (56; paragraph 48 as using flowline pressure to identify pressure loses; also paragraph 52-54 as determining pressure disturbance as correlating between measurements involves determining a difference). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the method of Jones et al. with the noise calculating steps of Ross et al. in order to determine the noise in the measurements of Jones et al. and provide more accurate data.
In regard to claim 9, Ross et al. disclose wherein the noise comprises a common system noise and formation-related noise (paragraph 54 at least, also inherent that noise would include all sources within the system).
In regard to claim 10, Ross et al. disclose wherein the common system noise is from a tool vibration, a gauge-related noise or another tool (paragraph 54 at least)
In regard to claim 11, Ross et al. disclose wherein the noise comprises a common system noise (paragraph 54 at least, also inherent that noise would include all sources within system).
In regard to claim 12, Ross et al. disclose wherein the common system noise is from a tool vibration, a gauge-related noise or another tool (paragraph 54 at least)
In regard to claim 13, Ross et al. disclose indicating the one or more probes are not in fluid communication with the formation when the difference is null (inherent to correlating measurements such that noise is “null” would include not being in fluid communication with formation as not being in use).
In regard to claim 14, Ross et al. disclose identifying a type of fluid within the tool fluid passageway based on pressure drop during a pressure drawdown (paragraph 41 at least where compressible fluid can be identified).
In regard to claim 15, Jones et al. disclose a method comprising: disposing a tool into a borehole, the tool disposed on a drill string or conveyance, wherein the tool comprises: a probe section (as in fig 3) comprising: at least two stabilizers (328, 330) to hold the tool in place in a formation; one or more probes (318, 320) that extend into the formation, wherein the one or more probes are on opposite side of the two stabilizers (as in fig 3); one or more probes channels (322, 324 as in fig 3) that connect the one or more probes to a prove fluid passageway (336) though one or more probe valves (332 as in fig 3); a pump (326) connected to the probe fluid passageway; a probe pressure sensor (338) disposed on the probe fluid passageway; a bubble point valve (334) that connects the probe fluid passageway to a tool fluid passageway; and a tool pressure sensor (308, as in paragraph 25) disposed on the tool fluid passageway; and a flow-control pump-out section comprising a bidirectional pump (312) connected to the tool fluid passageway; taking a pressure measurement at the tool pressure sensor (inherent to providing sensor as above); closing the bubble point valve (paragraph 26); and taking a pressure measurement at the tool pressure sensor (inherent to providing sensor as above). Jones et al. do not disclose calculating a noise, wherein the noise comprises a difference between the pressure measurement at the probe pressure sensor and the pressure measurement at the tool pressure sensor.
Ross et al. disclose a method comprising disposing a tool into a borehole (as in fig 1 or 2) and calculating a noise, wherein the noise comprises a difference between a pressure measurement at a probe pressure sensor (54) and a pressure measurement at a tool pressure sensor (56; paragraph 48 as using flowline pressure to identify pressure loses; also paragraph 52-54 as determining pressure disturbance as correlating between measurements involves determining a difference). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to provide the method of Jones et al. with the noise calculating steps of Ross et al. in order to determine the noise in the measurements of Jones et al. and provide more accurate data.
In regard to claim 18, Ross et al. disclose wherein the noise comprises a common system noise and formation-related noise (paragraph 54 at least, also inherent that noise would include all sources within the system).
In regard to claim 19, Ross et al. disclose wherein the common system noise is from a tool vibration, a gauge-related noise or another tool (paragraph 54 at least)
In regard to claim 20, Ross et al. disclose identifying a type of fluid within the tool fluid passageway based on pressure drop during a pressure drawdown (paragraph 41 at least where compressible fluid can be identified).
In regard to claim 21, Ross et al. disclose wherein the operational noise is from a mud pump rate, a pulser, and a bit position (inherent as noise would include all noise within system).
In regard to claim 22, Ross et al. disclose wherein the operational noise is from a mud thickness and mobility of the formation (inherent as noise would include all noise within system).
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 D Andrews whose telephone number is (571)272-6558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at 571-272-5405. 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.
/D. ANDREWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights