DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 1/27/2026 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 with respect to the applicability of the previous rejection(s) to the instantly amended claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jones et al. (US 2020/0284140) below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to because in each claim, the phrase “the one or more probes are an opposite side of the two stabilizers” is grammatically awkward and should apparently read – the one or more probes are on an opposite side of the two stabilizers –.
Claim 1 is also objected to because in line 9, “though” should apparently be – through --.
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 “a low volume pump” and “a high-volume bidirectional pump”, and are indefinite as it is not clear what “volumes” would be considered low or high as claimed. 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 an 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 low volume 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 high-volume 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 an 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 low volume 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 high-volume 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 an 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 low volume 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 high-volume 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).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 and 18-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,173,601 in view of Jones et al. (US 2020/0284140). For example, claim 1 of ‘601 discloses a method including disposing a tool into a borehole; wherein the tool comprises one or more probes that extend into a formation; one or more prob channels with one or more probe valves; a probe pressure sensor and a tool pressure sensor and calculating a noise based on a difference of measurements at the probe pressure sensor and tool pressure sensor. ‘601 does not claim that the tool includes a low volume pump and a high volume pump or that the probes are on an opposite side of two stabilizers. Jones et al. disclose a method including providing a tool including at least two stabilizers with one or more probes on an opposite side of the two stabilizers (as in fig 3, and as above); a low volume pump (326) and a high volume pump (312). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the method as claimed in ‘601 to include the components as disclosed by Jones et al. in order provide the probe closer to the formation for measurements (with the stabilizers) and provide motive force for the fluids to be drawn into the tool (with the pumps). Claims 2-15 and 18-22 are similarly encompassed by claims 2-18 of ‘601 with similar modification with Jones et al. as above.
Conclusion
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
3/11/2026