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 § 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 6, 8, 9 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 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. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The parent claim 1 discloses “a gamma ray detector” and does not disclose “the gamma ray detectors”. Additionally, parent claim 1 discloses “an open window” and does not specify “the open windows”. How are the respective items related? One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not be apprised of the scope of the claim. Claim 8 is rejected on dependence.
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 § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KNIZHNIK et al. (US 20220043178 A1).
Regarding claim 1, KNIZHNIK discloses a gamma ray measurement tool (tool 100; FIG. 5B), comprising: a tubular shell (104), a gamma ray detector disposed in the tubular shell (detector 120 and scintillator 122), and a shield disposed between the tubular shell and the gamma ray detector (body 102)([0046-0049]),
wherein the gamma ray detector comprises a scintillation crystal coupled to a photomultiplier tube (PMT 120 and scintillator 122; [0003, 0031]), and the shield has an open window configured to allow gamma rays to pass through and reach the scintillation crystal (recess 116 of window 110 allows gamma penetration; [0048]), and
wherein the tubular shell has a first axis in the longitudinal direction, and the gamma ray detector has a second axis in the longitudinal direction, the first axis and the second axis do not coincide with each other, and a distance between the scintillation crystal and an inner surface of the tubular shell through the window is shorter than a distance between the scintillation crystal and a portion of the tubular shell covered by the shield (Figure 5B shows the detector cavity 112 having a longitudinal axis (axis 80) that does not overlap with the longitudinal axis of the shell body of the tool (central axis 84), such that the distance between the crystal and inner surface of the shell is shorter; FIG 5B).
PNG
media_image1.png
1010
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5B of KNIZHNIK shows an off-axis gamma detector within a drill tool.
Regarding claim 2, KNIZHNIK discloses wherein a thickness of the shield varies along the circumferential direction of the gamma ray measurement tool (FIG. 5B).
Regarding claim 3, KNIZHNIK discloses wherein the thickness is lowest at a periphery of the open window and highest in a portion of the shield opposite to the window (FIG. 5B).
Regarding claim 6, KNIZHNIK 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, KNIZHNIK 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, KNIZHNIK 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, KNIZHNIK discloses 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 smallest (FIG 7B shows the crystals having approximately the same axial position; [0055]).
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 KNIZHNIK et al. (US 20220043178 A1).
Regarding claim 4, KNIZHNIK 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. However, 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. 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HUISZOON (US 20140346336 A1) discloses a borehole tool comprising an off-axis detector.
HUISZOON (US 20140346337 A1) discloses a borehole tool comprising an off-axis detector.
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