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 .
This action is responsive to the initial filing of 3/6/2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 41 uses the term “integrated optics” in a way that appears from context to refer to the name of a particular company, but is insufficiently clear as to that fact. For example, “integrated optics” is not capitalized to clarify that it is the name of a company instead of a generic term for optical components that are integrated in some way.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the list in claim 10 includes “the laser” as the first item and later also as the third item. The claim is interpreted as applying to the laser introduced in claim 9 in a redundant way, rather than as requiring two separate lasers be integrated into a rotating drill. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-4, 8, 11, 12, 15-18, and 23 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 the limitation “in different drilling conditions”. It is unclear what differences in conditions are referred to, as well as the extent of differences the device must be adjusted to accommodate. Further, it is unclear whether the phrase “to ensure consistent optical spectra in different drilling conditions” describes a limitation on how exactly the window is adjusted geometrically or merely an intention to achieve a particular result. Finally, stating that “the window is geometrically adjusted” is unclear. Is it saying that the device exists in a particular configuration (i.e., it has been adjusted geometrically) or that its configuration is adjustable (i.e., a user can adjust its geometry)? Is the limitation referring to an aspect of the apparatus or something that has happened/can happen to it? The claim is interpreted broadly, but reasonably, to encompass a wide variety of geometric window configurations in devices that achieve the claimed intention and not as requiring the geometry to be tunable in the field.
Claim 4 requires the laser be “an off-the-shelf laser”. It is unclear what exactly is meant by this, and the limitation allows for ambiguous situations. For example, does a laser become “an off-the-shelf laser” due to having previously been stored on a shelf and then taken off of that shelf? If a company that commercially manufactures lasers puts a laser they manufactured in a probe assembly, would that necessarily meet this limitation (all their lasers are off-the-shelf, having been made by a commercial laser manufacturer), necessarily not meet this limitation (none of their lasers are off-the-shelf, having been made by the maker of the probe assembly rather than purchased externally), or something else (such as only meeting the limitation if they are separately selling exactly the same type of laser used in the probe assembly)? The limitation is interpreted as requiring a commercially purchasable laser.
Claim 4 requires the laser have “no customization”. It is unclear what would and would not qualify as customizing a laser. Would it amount to customization to change the user-defined settings beyond manufacturer-intended ranges? change settings within manufacturer-intended ranges? use the device with accessories? include the device in a larger custom-built system, such as the claimed invention? The limitation is not interpreted as precluding the use of the laser in the claimed invention, including the use of driving circuits or external accessories with the laser.
Claim 4 contains the trademark/trade name “µFlash”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a pulsed laser and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
The term “with minimal loss” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “with minimal loss” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Further, it is unclear if the claim is intended to require any additional adaptations in the window or other parts of the probe assembly for minimizing loss. The claim is interpreted as merely requiring an absence of features designed to increase loss, such as a neutral density filter, and only in the window itself.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the plasma light" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The plasma light is interpreted as light emitted by a plasma.
The term “short” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “short” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim limitation is interpreted as meaning that the optical fiber cable is within the probe, rather than connecting the probe to the surface.
Claims 12 requires an ability to perform “real-time spectroscopic analysis”. It is unclear what timeframe is meant by “real-time”, rendering the limitation indefinite, absent further definition (e.g., specifying the amount of time allotted in terms of wall clock time, operational cadence, or other definite metrics). The limitation is interpreted as requiring that it be possible to carry out the analysis during drilling, such as in a logging-while-drilling setup.
Claim 15 requires the use of “an off-the-shelf LIBS laser”. It is unclear what exactly is meant by this, and the limitation allows for ambiguous situations. For example, does a laser become “an off-the-shelf laser” due to having previously been stored on a shelf and then taken off of that shelf? If a company that commercially manufactures lasers puts a laser they manufactured in a probe assembly, would that necessarily meet this limitation (all their lasers are off-the-shelf, having been made by a commercial laser manufacturer), necessarily not meet this limitation (none of their lasers are off-the-shelf, having been made by the maker of the probe assembly rather than purchased externally), or something else (such as only meeting the limitation if they are separately selling exactly the same type of laser used in the probe assembly)? The limitation is interpreted as requiring a commercially purchasable laser.
Claim 15 requires performing “real-time chemical and compositional identification”. It is unclear what timeframe is meant by “real-time”, rendering the limitation indefinite, absent further definition (e.g., specifying the time window in terms of wall clock time, operational cadence, or other definite metrics). The limitation is interpreted as requiring that it one to carry out the identification during drilling, such as in a logging-while-drilling setup.
Claim 16 recites detecting water ice at 1% concentration. There are several ways to define what 1% concentration means, and it is unclear which is being used in the claim. Is it 1 percent by weight/mass? by volume? by number of atoms? by some other metric? Given that the density of various components of a sample can vary substantially from one component to another, a sample with 1% water ice by volume might have less than 1% water ice by weight, as, for example, most rocks are substantially denser than water ice. The claim is interpreted as encompassing several different concentrations, including percentage by weight/mass and by volume.
Claim 16 requires detecting “in real time”. It is unclear what timeframe is meant by “real time”, rendering the limitation indefinite, absent further definition (e.g., specifying the time window in terms of wall clock time, operational cadence, or other definite metrics). The limitation is interpreted as requiring that it one to carry out the detection during drilling, such as in a logging-while-drilling setup.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the detachable drill bit" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term is interpreted to refer to the drill bit and further require that it be detachable.
Claims 17-18 are indefinite for depending on an indefinite 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)(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) 1-3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Speck (US patent publication 20140339412).
Regarding claim 1, Speck teaches a probe assembly of a portable subsurfacing and spectroscopic system (FIG. 1, as a whole), comprising:
a cylindrical body (FIG. 1, housing 110);
a laser positioned within the body and configured to emit a laser beam through a window at one end of the body (FIG. 1, optical module 112, described in paragraph 39 as including a laser, which emits and receives light through window 114); and
a collection fiber configured to collect the laser beam based on a dual-path optical setting and transmit the captured beam to a spectrometer for field analysis (FIG. 1, optical module 112, which is described as corresponding to an embodiment described by Speck (paragraph 39), such as that of FIG. 14, which shows fiber optic bundle 1420 collecting light 1412 in a separate optical path from laser pulse 1404. Paragraph 97 describes the first detector 1416 and second detector 1418 as potentially being spectrometers).
Regarding claim 2, Speck teaches the probe assembly of claim 1 (as described above), wherein, based on the dual-path optical setting, the collection fiber is configured to collect the laser beam using a separate optical path parallel to an illumination path in which the laser emits the laser beam (FIG. 14 shows the laser pulses 1404 as in a separate optical path from light 1412, which is collected by fiber optic bundle 1420, in parallel with the laser pulse emission).
Regarding claim 3, Speck teaches the probe assembly of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the window is adjusted geometrically to ensure consistent optical spectra in different drilling conditions (paragraph 38 discusses the consistent performance of the system, and the last few sentences of paragraph 39 discuss several ways that the geometry of the window may be configured).
Regarding claim 5, Speck teaches the probe assembly of claim 1 (as described above), further comprising a wire harness configured to provide electrical connections to laser electronics (FIG. 1, optical module 112, including the laser, is connected to power module 120, which is connected to amplification module 122, which is connected to telemetry system 124), wherein the connections for probe power and control signals interface with a topside assembly (FIG. 1, telemetry system 124 is connected to surface electronics and processing systems 126).
Regarding claim 6, Speck teaches the probe assembly of claim 5 (as described above), wherein the laser electronics are housed adjacent to the laser to control the emission of the laser beam (FIG. 1 shows power module 120 (described in paragraph 40) as adjacent to optical module 112, which includes the laser).
Regarding claim 7, Speck teaches the probe assembly of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the window is made of a material capable of withstanding environmental conditions encountered during the field analysis (FIG. 1, downhole 100 is shown as being disposed downhole, including window 118, which is also shown to be positioned downhole, as described in the last few sentences of paragraph 39, clearly indicating the ability of window 118 to withstand environmental conditions encountered downhole).
Regarding claim 8, Speck teaches the probe assembly of claim 7 (as described above), wherein the window is used to allow passage of the laser beam and collection of the plasma light with minimal loss (paragraph 39 points out that the optical module 112, shown in FIG. 1, is in optical communication with the borehole fluid via window 118. Paragraph 39 also points out that laser induced breakdown spectroscopy may be used as the optical technique. As described in paragraphs 95-97, laser induced breakdown spectroscopy uses a laser beam to excite a sample and involves collecting light from plasma excited by the laser beam).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speck (US patent publication 20140339412).
Regarding claim 9, Speck teaches a portable subsurfacing and spectroscopic system comprising:
a probe integrated into a production logging tool through a central mounting (FIG. 1 shows the probe, including optical module 112 and window 118, mounted centrally in the housing 110 of production logging tool), wherein:
an aperture on the tool is aligned with a window of the probe for collecting an optical signal from a laser (FIG. 1, window 118, described in paragraph 39 as transmitting laser light from optical module 112); and
a casing within the tool (FIG. 1, housing 110) is used to protect a collection fiber, wherein the collection fiber is configured to capture and transmit the laser beam to a spectrometer for spectral analysis (FIG. 1, optical module 112, which is described as corresponding to an embodiment described by Speck (paragraph 39), such as that of FIG. 14, which shows fiber optic bundle 1420 collecting light 1412 in a separate optical path from laser pulse 1404. Paragraph 97 describes the first detector 1416 and second detector 1418 as potentially being spectrometers).
While the production logging tool 100 shown in FIG. 1 does not appear to be a drill bit, Speck does suggest the use of a similar tool in a logging-while-drilling system (paragraph 45). By logging while drilling, decisions regarding how to proceed with drilling may be based on information obtained in real time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measurement system of Speck by placing it in a drill bit rather than in a separate tool, achieving the predicable benefit of enabling logging-while-drilling measurements, as suggested by Speck, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Speck, as modified by Speck, teaches or renders obvious the portable subsurfacing and spectroscopic system of claim 9 (as described above).
While Speck does not explicitly teach that the laser, the spectrometer, laser, and power electronics are integrated into a rotating drill attached to the drill bit without optical slip rings, the production logging tool 100 shown in FIG. 1 places the optical module 112, including laser and spectrometer, and the power module 120 in the housing 110, located downhole.
In adapting the production logging tool 100 for use in a logging-while-drilling system (see paragraph 45), the downhole part would be a rotating drill attached to the drill bit, with the result that the laser, the spectrometer, laser, and power electronics (see FIG. 1, optical module 112 and power module 120) are integrated into a rotating drill attached to the drill bit (from the teaching of paragraph 45 to use those modules as part of a logging-while-drilling system) without optical slip rings (optical slip rings would be unnecessary, as the optical module 112, located in housing 110, would be rotating as a single unit rather than having multiple parts rotating relative to each other). By integrating the optical and power parts into a rotating tool attached to a drill bit, embodiments of Speck could be used in drilling applications (paragraph 45, sentence three).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical logging-while-drilling system of Speck, as modified by Speck, by integrating the optical and power modules of Speck into a rotating drill without unnecessary optical slip rings, with the result predicted by Speck of enabling its use in drilling applications, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Speck, as modified by Speck, teaches or renders obvious the portable subsurfacing and spectroscopic system of claim 10 (as described above).
Speck is silent regarding the length of optical fiber cables (such as FIG. 14, fiber optic bundle 1420) and whether the cables used in the probe are flex cables, so does not explicitly teach that a short optical fiber cable and a flex cable are used to connect the probe in the drill bit.
It may be noted, however, that the system shown in FIG. 14 could be employed in optical module 112, so fiber optic bundle 1420 does not need to reach from the downhole probe to the surface, which fits the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “short optical fiber cable” (see the indefiniteness rejection above). Additionally, flex cables and non-flex cables would be equally capable of the task of connecting spectrometers in optical module 112 to power module 120, amplification module 122, and telemetry system 124.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical logging-while-drilling system of Speck, as modified by Speck, by using a short optical fiber cable to span the short distance to the spectrometers in optical module 112 and using flex cables instead of another equivalent to connect the components of the probe, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, Speck teaches or renders obvious the (as described above).
While it is not the embodiment of Speck relied on herein as a primary reference that teaches that integration of the probe within the drill bit allows for real-time spectroscopic analysis during drilling operations, the embodiment of Speck relied on to teach modifications to that first embodiment does teach that integration of the probe within the drill bit allows for real-time spectroscopic analysis during drilling operations (paragraph 45 teaches the use of the system in drilling applications as a logging-while-drilling. Logging-while-drilling refers to the collection of real-time data during drilling operations. In the case of Speck, that data is taught to be the result of spectroscopic analysis (paragraph 39 mentions several types of spectroscopy)). By employing the device in drilling applications, Speck teaches an ability to acquire information while drilling (paragraph 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical logging-while-drilling system of Speck, as modified by Speck, to acquire information while drilling, as is typical for the kind of logging-while-drilling applications taught by Speck, achieving the predictable benefit of informed drilling with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, Speck teaches or renders obvious the portable subsurfacing and spectroscopic system of claim 9 (as described above).
Speck further teaches that the probe is securely positioned within the drill bit to maintain stability and accuracy of laser-induced plasma generation and light collection (paragraph 38, penultimate sentence, the device is designed to be resistant to powerful shocks and/or vibrations. Note that the laser is located in the same housing 110 as the light collection components as part of optical module 112, as shown in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Speck teaches or renders obvious the portable subsurfacing and spectroscopic system of claim 9 (as described above).
Speck further teaches that the casing for the collection fiber is constructed to withstand mechanical stresses during drilling and protect integrity of data transmission (paragraph 38, penultimate sentence, the device is designed to be resistant to powerful shocks and/or vibrations. Note that the laser is located in the same housing 110 as the light collection components, including fiber optic bundle 1420, shown in FIG. 14, as part of optical module 112, as shown in FIG. 1).
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speck (US patent publication 20140339412) in view of Integrated Optics (non-patent literature “1030 NM NANOSECOND Q-SWITCH LASER”).
Regarding claim 4, Speck teaches the probe assembly of claim 1 (as described above).
While Speck does not explicitly teach that the laser is an off-the-shelf laser with no customization, and the off-the-shelf laser includes a µFlash laser, paragraph 96 only lists the lasers from other figures of Speck as examples of lasers to use in the system, rather than strictly demanding the use of one of the customized lasers.
In the same field of endeavor of optical measuring and testing with pulsed lasers, Integrated Optics does teach that the laser is an off-the-shelf laser with no customization, and the off-the-shelf laser includes a µFlash laser (the document is a product datasheet for a pulsed laser emblazoned with the name “µFlash”. A purchased laser, such as this pulsed laser from Integrated Optics, is an off-the-shelf laser.). Further, Integrated Optics explicitly suggests using the product for laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (paragraph 2 of description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the probe assembly of Speck with the commercial off-the-shelf laser of Integrated Optics as a way to produce a laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy device that is portable for the downhole applications of Speck.
Regarding claim 15, Speck teaches a method for applying an integrated laser induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS)-while-drilling system in subsurfacing environments for spectral analysis (FIG. 14 shows a laser-induced breakdown spectrometry setup, as described in paragraphs 95-97. Paragraph 45 discloses an embodiment used in drilling applications as a logging-while-drilling system. When logging-while-drilling uses LIBS as the logging technique, it is a LIBS-while-drilling method), the method comprising:
configuring the integrated system to include a dual-path optical collection subsystem (FIG. 14 shows fiber optic bundle 1420 collecting light 1412 in a separate optical path from laser pulse 1404) and
an off-the-shelf LIBS laser (FIG. 14, solid state laser 1402);
applying the integrated system in subsurfacing environments for collecting sample measurements during drilling operations (FIG. 14, fluid sample 1408); and
performing the spectral analysis on the collected measurements for automated and real- time chemical and compositional identification (paragraph 97, last sentence) during the drilling operations (paragraph 45).
Speck does not explicitly state that the laser used for LIBS is an off-the-shelf LIBS laser.
In the same field of endeavor of laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy, Integrated Optics does teach an off-the-shelf LIBS laser (the document is a product datasheet for a pulsed laser emblazoned with the name “µFlash”. A purchased laser, such as this pulsed laser from Integrated Optics, is an off-the-shelf laser.). Further, Integrated Optics explicitly suggests using the product for laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (paragraph 2 of description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LIBS-while-drilling system of Speck to use an off-the-shelf LIBS laser, such as one marketed for use in LIBS by Integrated Optics, as a convenient way to perform laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy without having to invent a new laser.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speck (US patent publication 20140339412) in view of Integrated Optics (non-patent literature “1030 NM NANOSECOND Q-SWITCH LASER”), further in view of Lasue (non-patent literature “Remote laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) for lunar exploration”).
Regarding claim 16, Speck, as modified by Integrated Optics teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 15 (as described above).
Speck further teaches that performing the spectral analysis comprises detecting in real time while drilling (paragraph 45 discusses logging-while-drilling, a real time detection technique performed while drilling).
Speck does not explicitly state that the detection is of water ice at a 1% concentration.
In the same field of endeavor of laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy, Lasue does teach that the detection is of water ice at a 1% concentration (paragraph 54 mentions detection of H2O at 1 wt %, in the context of water ice). By being able to detect trace quantities of water, Lasue is able to study the water content of lunar regolith (paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LIBS-while-drilling system of Speck, as modified by Integrated Optics, with the sensitive water detection of Lasue to be able to study lunar regolith or other soils, not necessarily on Earth, to determine the availability of water in the soil.
Regarding claim 17, Speck, as modified by Integrated Optics teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 15 (as described above).
Speck further teaches that performing the spectral analysis comprises:
measuring frequency variations of LIBS signals (paragraph 97 describes using spectrometers with a plurality of wavelength channels, meaning that light of different wavelengths (or, equivalently, different frequencies) is measured separately, and the identification is based on the frequency/wavelength variations measured across the light detected in those separate channels. For more discussion of how LIBS works, see Lasue, especially the first few sentences of paragraph 11).
Speck does not explicitly teach performing quantitative analysis based on the measured frequency variations to determine subsurface water content.
In the same field of endeavor of laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy, Lasue does teach performing quantitative analysis based on the measured frequency variations to determine subsurface water content (paragraph 1 discusses quantifying water content and paragraph 11 discusses a way of taking subsurface measurements). By using LIBS, Lasue is able to spectroscopically quantify the water content of samples, including samples under the surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LIBS-while-drilling system of Speck, as modified by Integrated Optics, with the subsurface water content measurement of Lasue to gain the predictable benefit of quantifying moisture in the soil that is being drilled into, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speck (US patent publication 20140339412) in view of Integrated Optics (non-patent literature “1030 NM NANOSECOND Q-SWITCH LASER”) further in view of Harhira (foreign patent publication CA3085254).
Regarding claim 18, Speck, as modified by Integrated Optics teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 15 (as described above),
Speck does not explicitly use the term “artificial intelligence” to characterize the spectral analysis techniques used, though it may be noted that a wide variety of techniques may be reasonably characterized as such.
In the same field of endeavor of endeavor of spectral analysis via laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy, Harhira does teach that the spectral analysis is an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven spectral analysis (paragraph 118, which lists several artificial intelligence techniques for spectral analysis, including artificial neural networks). By using artificial intelligence driven techniques, Harhira is able to analyze the spectra measured from the plasma produced by laser-induced breakdown of a sample (paragraph 118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LIBS-while-drilling system of Speck, as modified by Integrated Optics, with the AI-based spectral analysis techniques of Harhira to gain the predictable benefit of identifying the concentrations of components of the sample and allowing pattern recognition and clustering of the results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeffryes (US patent 9416594) in view of Moflon (non-patent literature “All You Need To Know About Fiber Optic Rotary Joints”).
Regarding claim 19, Jeffryes teaches a method for configuring a portable system in subsurfacing environments, the method comprising:
configuring a window at a probe interface (COL. 9, lines 41-44 discuss a transmissive window to protect the optics in the drill), wherein a distance between the window and a sample is fixed to negate the need for a focusing mechanism (FIG. 9A, guard 809 is used to produce a particular stand-off distance. Note COL. 8, lines 22-25, in which a variable focusing mechanism is presented as optional);
positioning the window at a specific angle and location at the tip of a drill bit to minimize cross-contamination (COL. 10, lines 55-58, the laser energy may be emitted in particular directions, creating a particular pattern);
using a hollow drill stem for downhole fiber cable routing (COL. 10, line 65, through COL. 11, line 13, the light may be produced at the surface and a waveguide used to transmit light downhole); and
using a probe retention plate for secure installation within the drill bit (shown in FIG. 1B where the number 22 is pointing, at the top of drilling assembly 22).
Jeffryes does not give many details as to how to connect a laser source at the surface to the bit downhole, so does not explicitly teach applying a fiber optic rotary joint at a drill head for an optical connection between downhole and topside fibers.
In the same field of endeavor of optics in situations involving rotations, Moflon does teach applying a fiber optic rotary joint at a drill head for an optical connection between downhole and topside fibers (paragraph 2 explicitly mentions oil drilling systems as an example of a use for a fiber optic rotary joint). By using a fiber optic rotary joint, Moflon is able to prevent twisting in an optical fiber (paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optically-connected drilling system of Jeffryes with the fiber optic rotary joint of Moflon to connect a laser source at the surface to a rotating drill bit while preventing twists in the optical fiber.
Regarding claim 20, Jeffryes, as modified by Moflon, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 19 (as described above),
Jeffryes further teaches that the window is a sapphire window, and the sapphire window is resistant to temperature, pressure, abrasion, and corrosion, and maintains optical transparency in an ultraviolet to near-infrared (UV-NIR) range (COL. 9, lines 42-43. Note that the properties listed are inherent to the kind of transmissive sapphire window taught by Jeffryes, as evidenced by the inclusion of sapphire on the list of materials usable to form a protective optical head, alongside materials such as steel, tungsten carbide, and diamond (COL. 9, lines 37-41)).
Regarding claim 21, Jeffryes, as modified by Moflon, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 20 (as described above).
Jeffryes further teaches that the sapphire window contacts with loose cuttings from drilling, and the contact provides a scouring effect such that an optical path remains unobstructed (COL. 9, lines 48-51 state that the optical delivery system may be appurtenant to or in contact with the earth formation 920. As the earth formation is the source of the cuttings, such a position would naturally put the optical system in contact with the cuttings as they are loosed).
Regarding claim 22, Jeffryes, as modified by Moflon, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 19 (as described above).
Jeffryes does not teach the fiber optic rotary joint, so is silent as to whether it accommodates a rotational movement of the drill stem while maintaining integrity of the optical signal.
In the same field of endeavor of optics in situations involving rotations, Moflon does teach that the fiber optic rotary joint accommodates a rotational movement of the drill stem while maintaining integrity of the optical signal (paragraph 1 points out the use of a fiber optic rotary joint for less loss transfer in a signal). By using an optical fiber rotary joint, Moflon is able to rotate an optical fiber coupling while reducing loss in the transfer (paragraph 1) as is commonly used in oil drilling systems (paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optically-connected drilling system of Jeffryes, as modified by Moflon, with the low loss of a fiber optic rotary joint as taught by Moflon to gain the predictable benefit of maintaining optical integrity.
Regarding claim 23, Jeffryes, as modified by Moflon, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 19 (as described above).
Jeffryes further teaches that the probe is configured to install through the rear of the detachable drill bit and be secured with the retention plate (COL. 3, lines 61-63 point out that the portions of the drill assembly are screwed together, a detachable coupling method. Note that the drill bit is attached via its rear side, as the front of the drill bit is not attached to anything and that the retention plate is disposed at that rear part of drill bit).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights