DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
In the reply filed May 5, 2026, the applicant amended claims 1, 8, 9, and 13.
The applicant cancelled claims 11 and 16.
The applicant added claims 19 and 20.
Currently claims 1-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are under examination.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10, 12-15, 17, 29, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deffenbaugh (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0320769) in view of Kazanci (U.S. Patent No. 11,933,142).
Regarding Claim 1, Deffenbaugh discloses a process for obtaining data from a wellbore, where the process comprises:
Dropping or pumping a ball or dart (Deffenbaugh: 200) into the well wherein the dart (Deffenbaugh: 200) is equipped with one or more sensors (Deffenbaugh: 225, 230) to detect restrictions in the tubing, casing or liner (Deffenbaugh: Paragraph [0021]) in the well,
Or to detect geometry of the tubing, casing or liner (Deffenbaugh: Paragraph [0022]) in the well, or to detect leaks in the tubing, casing or liner (Deffenbaugh: Paragraph [0021]);
Storing detected data in the dart (Deffenbaugh: 200)(Deffenbaugh: paragraph [0029])
Processing data in the ball or dart (Deffenbaugh: 200) )(Deffenbaugh: paragraph [0029]);
Communicating the data from the dart (Deffenbaugh: 200) to the surface by transmitting signals through well fluid (Deffenbaugh: Paragraph [0033]: signal through fluid); and
Deffenbaugh does not disclose:
Wherein the dart or ball comprises a first module comprising a data sensor and/or transmitter and a second module having a drift diameter greater than that of the first module, the first and second modules being detachable, and wherein a plurality of second modules having different drift diameters are provided and wherein the process includes selecting a second module from the said plurality of second modules in order to test the drift diameter of the well tubing.
Kazanci discloses a dart or ball comprising a first module comprising a data sensor and/or transmitter and a second module having a drift diameter greater than that of the first module, the first and second modules being detachable, and wherein a plurality of second modules having different drift diameters are provided (Kazanci: Column 9 lines 11-34: detachable sections, Column 10: line 47 -Column 11: line 13: varying diameter second modules) and wherein the process includes selecting a second module from the plurality of second modules to test the drift diameter of the well tubing (drift diameter of well tubing is tested by utilizing a second module that fits within the tubing. i.e. selecting a module diameter that is neither too large nor too small to fit securely is, in itself, a test of the drift diameter of the well tubing).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have incorporated the detachable second body arrangement of Kazanci with a reasonable expectation of success in the invention of Deffenbaugh in order to allow the sensor in the dart to be sized properly to fit within the inner wall while simultaneously engaging the sides of the inner wall with the same sensor as disclosed by Kazanci (Kazanci: Column 10: line 47 -Column 11: line 13).
Regarding Claim 2, Deffenbaugh and Kazanci render obvious the process according to claim 1, wherein the said one or more sensors (Deffenbaugh: 225, 230) include an acoustic caliper, impulse radar sensor, ultra sound sensor or multi finger caliper (“MFC”) for gathering data about wellbore geometry, e.g. detecting restrictions in the well or tubing (Deffenbaugh: Paragraph [0082]).
Regarding Claim 5, Deffenbaugh and Kazanci render obvious the process according to claim 1, wherein the said one or more sensors (Deffenbaugh: 225, 230) include an acoustic sensor (Deffenbaugh: Paragraph [0088]) in the dart (Deffenbaugh: 200)/ball to detect leaks in tubing casing or liner (Deffenbaugh: Paragraph [0022]), or behind tubing, casing or liner (Deffenbaugh: Paragraph [0022]).
Regarding Claim 6, Deffenbaugh and Kazanci render obvious the process according to claim 1, wherein the said one or more sensors (Deffenbaugh: 225, 230) include a casing collar locator (“CCL”) for identifying measured depth location in the well by detecting features, e.g. collars, on tubing, casing or liner (Deffenbaugh: Paragraph [0081]).
Regarding Claim 7, Deffenbaugh and Kazanci render obvious the process according to claim 1, wherein the said one or more sensors (Deffenbaugh: 225, 230) include a temperature sensor and/or a pressure sensor (Deffenbaugh: Paragraph [0077]).
Regarding Claim 10, Deffenbaugh and Kazanci render obvious the process according to claim 1, wherein the dart (Deffenbaugh: 200) is dissolvable or degrades (Deffenbaugh: Paragraph [0066]).
Regarding Claim 12, Deffenbaugh and Kazanci render obvious the process according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of balls or darts (Deffenbaugh: 200) are provided (nothing in Deffenbaugh prevents additional darts or balls from being used at a later time), each comprising a data sensor and/or transmitter having a different drift diameter and/or length.
Regarding Claim 13, Deffenbaugh discloses a ball or dart (Deffenbaugh: 200) for dropping or pumping through well tubing, the ball or dart (Deffenbaugh: 200) comprising:
(a) one or more sensors (Deffenbaugh: 225, 230) for detecting a condition of the well as the ball or dart (Deffenbaugh: 200) passes along the tubing;
(b) a data storage facility for storing sensed data (Deffenbaugh: Paragraph [0018]);
(c) a data processing facility for processing data before or after storage (Deffenbaugh: Paragraph [0029]);
(d) a communication facility for transferring data to the surface via well fluids (Deffenbaugh: Paragraph [0033]).
Deffenbaugh does not disclose:
(e) wherein the dart or ball comprises a first module comprising a data sensor and/or transmitter and a second module having a drift diameter greater than that of the first module, the first and second modules being detachable, and wherein a plurality of drift diameter-testing second modules having different drift diameters are provided.
Kazanci discloses a dart or ball comprising a first module comprising a data sensor and/or transmitter and a second module (having a drift diameter greater than that of the first module, the first and second modules being detachable, and wherein a plurality of second modules having different drift diameters are provided (Kazanci: Column 9 lines 11-34: detachable sections, Column 10: line 47 -Column 11: line 13: varying diameter second modules).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have incorporated the detachable second body arrangement of Kazanci with a reasonable expectation of success in the invention of Deffenbaugh in order to allow the sensor in the dart to be sized properly to fit within the inner wall while simultaneously engaging the sides of the inner wall with the same sensor as disclosed by Kazanci (Kazanci: Column 10: line 47 -Column 11: line 13) (drift diameter of well tubing is tested by utilizing a second module that fits within the tubing. i.e. selecting a module diameter that is neither too large nor too small to fit securely is, in itself, a test of the drift diameter of the well tubing).
Regarding Claim 14, Deffenbaugh and Kazanci render obvious the ball or dart (Deffenbaugh: 200) according to claim 13, wherein the said one or more sensors (Deffenbaugh: 225, 230) are selected from an acoustic caliper, an acoustic sensor, an optical fibre within the dart (Deffenbaugh: 200), a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a flow meter, a magnetometer (Deffenbaugh: Paragraph [0077]).
Regarding Claim 15, Deffenbaugh and Kazanci render obvious the ball or dart (Deffenbaugh: 200) according to claim 13, wherein the dart (Deffenbaugh: 200) or ball is dissolvable (Deffenbaugh: Paragraph [0066]).
Regarding Claim 17, Deffenbaugh and Kazanci render obvious a set comprising a plurality of balls or darts (Deffenbaugh: 200) each according to claim 13, wherein a plurality of balls or darts (Deffenbaugh: 200) are provided (nothing in Deffenbaugh prevents additional darts or balls from being used at a later time), each comprising a data sensor and/or transmitter each having a different drift diameter and/or length.
Regarding Claim 19, Deffenbaugh and Kazanci render obvious the process according to claim 1, wherein the detachable second module comprises a plurality of second modules having one or more deformable wiper fins attached sequentially in a variety of diameters (Kazanci: 316, Column 11: lines 63-66: multiple 204s).
Regarding Claim 20, Deffenbaugh and Kazanci render obvious the ball or dart according to claim 13, wherein the detachable second module comprises a plurality of second modules having one or more deformable wiper fins attached sequentially in a variety of diameters (Kazanci: 316, Column 11: lines 63-66: multiple 204s).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deffenbaugh in view Kazanci, further in view of Niina (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0284103).
Regarding Claim 3, Deffenbaugh and Kazanci render obvious the process according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the said one or more sensors (Deffenbaugh: 225, 230) include a flex sensor, e.g. an optical fibre within the dart (Deffenbaugh: 200) oriented along the length of the dart (Deffenbaugh: 200) or arranged in a coil, able to detect bending of the dart (Deffenbaugh: 200) and thus of the well or tubing.
Nina discloses a flex sensor oriented along the length of a dart and able to detect a bending of the dart and therefore tubing (Niina: Paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have incorporated the flex sensor of Niina as the sensor of Deffenbaugh with a reasonable expectation of success of measuring the dimensions (deflection) of the conduit into which the dart is placed as disclosed by Niina (Niina: Paragraph [0032]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deffenbaugh in view Kazanci, further in view of Scherbatskoy (U.S. Pub. No. 4,676,310).
Regarding Claim 4, Deffenbaugh and Kazanci render obvious the process according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the said one or more sensors (Deffenbaugh: 225, 230) include a gyro that can gather information about the shape of the wellbore.
Scherbatskoy discloses a sensor on a downhole probe comprising a gyro that can gather information about the shape of the wellbore (Scherbatskoy: Column 12: lines 60-66: inclinometer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have incorporated the well-known in the art gyro (inclinometer) as the sensor of Deffenbaugh with a reasonable expectation of success of measuring the inclination of the wellbore (information about the shape) as disclosed by Scherbatskoy (Scherbatskoy: Column 12: lines 60-66: inclinometer).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deffenbaugh in view Kazanci, further in view of van Pol (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0171783)
Regarding Claim 8, Deffenbaugh and Kazanci render obvious the process according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the dart or ball docks in a docking station in the well, where data stored in the dart or ball is transferred to the docking station and transmitted up said pre-installed TEC line to the surface.
Van Pol discloses a dart or ball docking in a docking station in the well, where data stored in the dart or ball is transferred to the docking station and transmitted up a pre-installed TEC line to the surface (Van Pol Paragraph [0111]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have incorporated the dock of van Pol into the invention of Deffenbaugh with a reasonable expectation of success of allowing the sensor data to be gathered after interfacing with the dart (capsule) as disclosed by van Pol (van Pol: Paragraph [0117]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deffenbaugh in view Kazanci, further in view of Pawar (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0277771)
Regarding Claim 9, Deffenbaugh and Kazanci render obvious the process according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the dart or ball docks in a docking station in the well, where data stored in the dart or ball is transferred to the docking station and the data is transmitted to said pre-installed DAS line.
Pawar discloses a dart or ball transmitting data to a pre-installed DAS line (Pawar: 16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s effective filing date to have utilized the pre-installed DAS line of Pawar as the method of transmission in the invention of Deffenbaugh with a reasonable expectation of success of collecting measurements (of the type intended to be collected by the dart of Deffenbaugh) utilizing the dart/ball as disclosed by Pawar (Pawar: Paragraph [0022]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deffenbaugh in view Kazanci, further in view of Woie (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0277984).
Regarding Claim 18, Deffenbaugh and Kazanci render obvious a ball or dart (Deffenbaugh: 200) according to claim 13, but does not disclose said ball or dart (Deffenbaugh: 200) comprising one or more wiper darts (Deffenbaugh: 200) with integrated sensors (Deffenbaugh: 225, 230) to detect flexing of the dart fins said fins composed of rubber, nitrile, polymer, or gel (Deffenbaugh: Paragraph [0112]: activation device for biased probe may comprise a polymer).
Woie discloses a downhole sensor device having fins with integrated sensors, wherein the integrated sensors (Woie: 46) detect flexing of the dart fins said fins composed of rubber, nitrile, polymer, or gel (Deffenbaugh: Paragraph [0112]: activation device for biased probe may comprise a polymer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have integrated the fin sensors of Woie in the invention of Deffenbaugh with the predictable result of measuring additional downhole characteristics of the wellbore via measurement of the effect of the shape of the wellbore on the downhole ball/dart.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, see reply, filed November 11, 2025, with respect to claims 1-10, 12-15 and 17-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, the applicant argues that Kazanci does not disclose or suggest a modular architecture in which a first module comprising sensing functionality is detachably connected to a second module defining a drift diameter, and that neither Deffenbaugh describe the step of selecting a module form a plurality of detachable modules or the use of such a detachable module for testing well tubing drift.
The examiner respectfully submits that the invention of Kazanci discloses both a detachably connected first and second module and the second drift diameter being intentionally variably fitted to the largest diameter through which the dart will pass (Kazanci: Column 9: lines 11-34: detachable sections, Column 10: line 47 -Column 11: line 13: varying diameter second modules). Therefore Kazanci teaches both a modular architecture in which a first module comprising sensing functionality that is detachably connected to a second module defining a drift diameter as well as the step of selecting a module form a plurality of detachable modules or the use of such a detachable module for testing well tubing drift
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9850722 (Universal downhole probe system).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS S WOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:30 AM - 7:00 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, Nicole A 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.
DOUGLAS S. WOOD
Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/DOUGLAS S WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Nicole Coy/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights