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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 9-10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samee et al. (US 10, 415,381, hereafter Samee)
With respect to claim 1, Samee teaches a method, comprising: introducing a selective sorbent material that selectively captures an element of interest into contact with an aqueous formation material at a subterranean location; recovering the selective sorbent material; and determining an amount of the element of interest in the recovered selective sorbent material. (col. 3, lines 20-43, Fig. 1)
With respect to claim 4, Samee teaches determining an amount of the element of interest in the recovered selective sorbent material comprises disposing the selective sorbent material into an extraction fluid, extracting the element of interest from the selective sorbent into the extraction fluid to form an extract, and determining a concentration of the element of interest in the extract. (col. 3, lines 20-43, Fig. 1)
With respect to claim 5, Samee teaches determining a parameter related to a concentration of the element of interest in the aqueous formation material based on the concentration of the element of interest in the extract. (col. 3, lines 20-43, Fig. 1)
With respect to claim 9, Samee teaches the selective sorbent material is a first selective sorbent material, the subterranean location is a first subterranean location, and the amount of the element of interest in the first selective sorbent material is a first amount, and further comprising: introducing a second selective sorbent material into contact with the aqueous formation material at a second subterranean location; recovering the second selective sorbent material; and determining a second amount of the element of interest in the second selective sorbent material. (col. 3, lines 20-43, Fig. 1)
With respect to claim 10, Samee teaches determining the parameter related to the concentration of the element of interest in the aqueous formation material is also based on the second amount. (col. 3, lines 20-43, Fig. 1)
With respect to claim 13, Samee teaches a method comprising: introducing a plurality of selective sorbent materials that selectively capture one or more elements of interest into contact with an aqueous formation material at a plurality of subterranean locations; recovering the plurality of selective sorbent materials; and determining an amount of at least an element of interest of the one or more elements of interest in each of the recovered selective sorbent materials. (col. 3, lines 20-43, Fig. 1)
With respect to claim 14, Samee teaches logging a parameter related to a concentration of a selected element of interest of the one or more elements of interest in the aqueous formation material based on the amount of the selected element of interest in each of the recovered selective sorbent materials. (col. 3, lines 20-43, Fig. 1)
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samee.
With respect to claims 2-3, although Samee does not explicitly teach introducing a selective sorbent material into contact with an aqueous formation material at a subterranean location comprises dispersing a solid particulate selective sorbent material into a carrier fluid to form a treatment mixture and pumping the treatment mixture into a well, circulating the selective sorbent material to a diversion point within the well and recovering the selective sorbent material at the surface, this is a common method of sampling underground wells and therefore it would have been an obvious alternative method to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to supply and retrieve a sampling material without using a dedicated sampling apparatus.
With respect to claims 6-7, Samee teaches measuring the temperature at the sampling location. Although Samee Does not explicitly discuss dispersing one or more temperature sensors into the carrier fluid, wherein recovering the selective sorbent material comprises recovering a sample containing a portion of the selective sorbent material and at least one temperature sensor, this is a known process and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include temperature sensors in order to have that data point when analyzing the results.
With respect to claim 8, although Samee does not explicitly teach determining the parameter is also based on a flow rate of the treatment material in the well, the flow rate of the treatment material would have an obvious effect on the absorbing abilities of the treatment material and therefore it would have been obvious to include this parameter in order to more accurately retrieve results.
With respect to claim 11, although Samee does not explicitly teach the carrier fluid is a drilling fluid, This would be an obvious choice as treatment material as it is being pumped into the well anyway.
With respect to claim 12, although Samee does not explicitly teach the selective sorbent material is configured to capture a first element of interest and a second element of interest, and wherein determining the amount of the element of interest comprises determining an amount of the first element of interest in the selective sorbent material and determining an amount of the second element of interest in the selective sorbent material, It is known to test for multiple parameters at the same time and therefore it would have been obvious to investigate multiple elements of interest.
With respect to claims 15 and 16, although Samee does not explicitly teach the element of interest is lithium, lithium is an element of significant interest in downhole drilling processes and therefore it would have been obvious to investigate the presence of lithium as an alternative in order to retrieve information regarding the concentration of lithium.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2012/0149604; US 2013/0031972; US 11,255,189; and US 11,391,147 each teach an invention having similarities to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/JILL E CULLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights