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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the two or more acquisition windows having different lengths/durations/widths, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding independent claims 1, 11 and 16, the claim discloses “two or more acquisition windows”. In [0019] of the specification and Fig. 3A, it is shown that to determine the motion indicator, the acquisition windows need to have have different lengths/durations/widths. Undue experimentation would be required to perform the claimed method with acquisition windows that have the same lengths/durations/widths. Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected for depending on one of said independent claims.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding independent claims 1, 11 and 16, it is unclear from the claim language if the “two or more acquisition windows” have different lengths/durations/widths. Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected for depending on one of said independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 1, 11 and 16, the closest prior art is considered Utsuzawa (US 2024/0248232). Utsuzawa teaches determining NMR echo data having motion artifacts in response to performing downhole NMR measurements using an NMR tool of the well system[¶0029, ¶0048. See also rest of reference.]; determining motion data based on one or more non-NMR motion measurements obtained from one or more downhole well devices [¶0029, ¶0048. See also rest of reference.].
However, Utsuzawa is silent in teaching determining a motion indicator based on echo measurements performed using two or more acquisition windows within each of a plurality of echo waveforms of the NMR echo data; selecting a motion hyperparameter based on the motion data and a motion correlation mechanism; and determining corrected NMR echo data having reduced motion artifacts based on the motion indicator and the selected motion hyperparameter.
Another prior art, Reiderman (US 2023/0384472) teaches a motion indicator based on echo measurements performed using two or more acquisition windows within each of a plurality of echo waveforms of the NMR echo data [Abstract]; determining motion data based on one or more non-NMR motion measurements obtained from one or more downhole well devices [¶0030, ¶0086-0087. See also rest of reference.].
However, Reiderman is also silent in teaching selecting a motion hyperparameter based on the motion data and a motion correlation mechanism; and determining corrected NMR echo data having reduced motion artifacts based on the motion indicator and the selected motion hyperparameter.
Therefore, the relevant prior art is still silent in teaching selecting a motion hyperparameter based on the motion data and a motion correlation mechanism; and determining corrected NMR echo data having reduced motion artifacts based on the motion indicator and the selected motion hyperparameter.
Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are above the relevant prior art for depending on one of said independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tang (US 2021/0199838) teaches an NMR tool and hyperparameters. However, Tang is also silent in teaching at least selecting a motion hyperparameter based on the motion data and a motion correlation mechanism; and determining corrected NMR echo data having reduced motion artifacts based on the motion indicator and the selected motion hyperparameter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RISHI R PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4385. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/RISHI R PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights