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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are amended. Claims 1-9 are pending and are examined in this action. The remarks state that claim 9 is canceled. However, the claim listing filed 09/14/2026 presents claim 9 with the status identified “Currently Amended” and with amended text and it does not mark claim 9 as canceled. Under 37 CFR 1.121(c), the claim listing controls the status and content of the claims. Claim 9 is therefore treated as pending and examined below.
Response to Remarks
112(b). Applicant asserts that the amendments overcome the rejections of claims 6, 8 and 9 under 35 USC § 112(b). The amendments overcome the earlier antecedent basis rejections of claims 6 and 9. They do not overcome the rejection of claim 6 based on “180° C”. The amendments also introduce new indefiniteness issues which are set out below.
102 over Knizknik (the ‘178 publication). Applicants argue that amended claim 1 is not anticipated by the ‘178 publication because crystal 112a, 122b and windows 110a, 110b of the ‘178 publication Figs. 7A-C lie side by side at the same longitudinal position, not in tandem. This argument is persuasive. However, a new rejection is made under § 103 over Huiszoon et al. (the ‘336 publication) in view of the ‘178 publication.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. “photomutiplier tube” (two occurrences) should read “photomultiplier tube”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality. “an axial distance … are smallest” contains a subject-verb disagreement and should read “is smallest”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3-9 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.
Claim 3 recites “opposite to the window” at the end of the claim. Claim 1 recites both “a first open window” and “a second open window”, so it is unclear which window “the window” references. Based on context, the claim will be interpreted as “the first window”.
Claims 4 and 5 each recite “the scintillation crystal.” Claim 1 recites both “a first scintillation crystal,” and it is unclear which crystal’s diameter sets the claimed range. For examination, “the scintillation crystal” is interpreted as “the first scintillation crystal”. Claim 4 is rejected based on dependence.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " two of the gamma ray detectors installed in the tubular shell in a way that the open windows in the two gamma ray detectors are offset by 180o C" in lines 1-2. An azimuthal angle expressed in a temperature has not clear meaning and so the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “an azimuthal angle of 180°”.
Claim 7 recites “The gamma ray measurement tool of claim 7” and so it depends from itself. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as depending from claim 1.
Claims 8 and 9 recite that the detectors are arranged so that the axial (longitudinal) distance between the scintillation crystals “are smallest” (claim 8) or “is minimal” (claim 9). These are relative terms or degree, the specification does not provide a specific definition, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim.
Claim 9 recites “wherein each of the two detectors has a first end and a second end, an axial distance between the first end and the scintillation crystal in each detector is shorter than an axial distance between the second end and the scintillation crystal, and wherein the first ends of the two detectors are installed adjacent to each other.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the claims do not make clear which scintillation crystal is referenced. Does each gamma ray detector comprise a scintillator, or the two detectors share a scintillator? One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not be apprised of the scope of the 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUISZOON et al. (US 20140346336 A1) in view of KNIZHNIK et al. (US 20220043178 A1).
Regarding claim 1, ‘336 discloses a gamma ray measurement well-logging tool 43, an LWD tool within collar 30; Figs. 2-3; [0027-0028]) comprising:
a tubular shell (housing 25 defines a longitudinally extending dual-detector receiving chamber 42 with first and second portions 41a-b; Fig 3; [0029, 0042]);
a first gamma ray detector, a second gamma ray detector disposed in the tubular shell (first detector 13a carried in first portion 41a and second detector 13b carried in second portion 41b of the chamber within housing 25 [0030-0031]. Either or both detectors may be azimuthal gamma ray detectors [0033]);
a first shield disposed between the tubular shell and the first gamma ray detector, and a second shield disposed between the tubular shell and the second gamma ray detector (first shield 16a can be tungsten, partially surrounding first detector 18a inside housing 25; IG 8A shows shield 16a located between housing 25a and crystal 18a, so the shield lies radially between the housing and the detector (FIGs 4-5, 8A; [0039]);
the first gamma ray detector comprises a first scintillation crystal coupled to a first photomultiplier tube (first radiation detector 13a comprises first gamma ray detector 18a, a scintillator crystal and associated photomultiplier tube FIGs 3-4; [0030]);
the first shield has a first open window configured to allow gamma rays to pass through hand reach the first scintillation crystal (shield 16a only partially surrounds crystal 18a and gives the detector a directionality to radiation from the formation, thereby defining a first open window; [0039-0040]);
the second gamma ray detector comprises a second scintillation crystal coupled to a second photomultiplier tube, and the second shield has a second open window configured to allow gamma rays to pass through hand reach the second scintillation window (second detector 13b comprises a gamma ray (scintillator) detector 18b and associated photomultiplier tube, and respective shield with window 16a, 16b; [0031, 0040]);
wherein the tubular shell has a shell axis in a longitudinal direction, the first and the second gamma ray detectors have a first axis and a second axis in the longitudinal direction (housing 25 and chamber 42 extend longitudinally and the cylindrical crystals extend along the tool (Figs. 3, 6-7, 9C; [0029, 0041]);
wherein the first and second gamma ray detectors are installed in tandem in the longitudinal direction of the tubular shell (first and second gamma ray detectors may be arranged in end-to-end relation in the first and second portions 41a, 41b of the chamber; Figs. 3, 9C; [0031, 0041, 0048]).
PNG
media_image1.png
646
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of ‘336 shows tandem gamma ray detectors 13a-b
The ‘336 publication discloses scintillator crystal of the azimuthal detector is aligned in an offset relation to the center axis of the housing, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the shell axis, the first axis, and the second axis do not coincide. In the same field of endeavor, the ‘178 publication discloses a gamma ray logging tool 100 in which the gamma ray detector assembly 120 (scintillation crystal 122 and photomultiplier) is housed in a cylindrical cavity 112. The axis 80 of cavity 112 is radially offset from the tools central axis 84 by distance L4, toward a window 110 formed by recess 16 (Figs. 5A-C; [0040, 0046, 0051]). ‘178 explains that the off-axis placement leaves only a thin arch-like wall 130 between the detector and the window, which minimizes attenuation in the window direction. It also places a large mass of body material in the opposite side 134, maximizing shielding from that side, resulting in improved detection sensitivity (0044, 0045, 0048, 0049). Applying a known technique (‘178 off-axis teaching) to each of the ‘336 detectors improves each in the same way, leading to predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
PNG
media_image2.png
1010
938
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5B of ‘178 shows an off-axis gamma detector within a drill tool.
Regarding claim 2, ‘336 shields 16a,b only partially surround their crystals ([0039-0040]), their thickness therefore varying along the circumferential direction of the tool (Fig 8A-B). ‘178 discloses wherein a thickness of the shield varies along the circumferential direction of the gamma ray measurement tool (FIG. 5B).
Regarding claim 3, ‘178 further discloses wherein the thickness is lowest at a periphery of the first open window and highest in a portion of the first shield opposite to the window (FIG. 5B).
Regarding claim 4, ‘178 discloses a distance between the first axis and the second axis, but does not specify the distance as at least one time of a diameter of the scintillation crystal. ‘178 teaches that the radial offset L4 of the detector cavity axis from the tool axis is a result-effective variable. Selecting a preferred distance of a displacement of the detector relative the axis of the tool is a matter of routine optimization within the prior art conditions through routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II) explains that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, as explained in claim 4 above, selecting a preferred distance of a displacement of the detector relative the axis of the tool is a matter of obvious optimization within the prior art conditions through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 6, ‘178 discloses comprising two of the gamma ray detectors 122a/b installed in the tubular shell in a way that the open windows in the two gamma ray detectors are offset by 180o C (FIG 7B; [0055]).
Regarding claim 7, ‘178 discloses a second gamma ray detector, wherein the open window in the second gamma ray detector opens to a direction that is opposite to the open window of the gamma ray detector (FIG 7B; [0055]).
Regarding claim 8, ‘178 discloses wherein the two gamma ray detectors are arranged in such a way that an axial distance between the scintillation crystals in the two gamma ray detectors are smallest (FIG 7B shows the crystals having approximately the same axial position; [0055]).
Regarding claim 9, ‘178 discloses wherein each of the two detectors has a first end and a second end, wherein arranging the two detectors end-to-end leaves a finite number of orientations, only one of them closest together. It would have been obvious to choose that orientation to minimize depth offset between the two directional measurements, a known design consideration and predictable result. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
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 CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P 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, UZMA ALAM can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights