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 § 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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites the limitation "the liquid" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, though it appears that the proper basis is in claim 17.
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) 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 4264862 to Koelle et al.
Regarding claim 1, Koelle discloses a water exclusion apparatus for a geophysical imaging tool, the water exclusion apparatus 27 configured to be placeable around an exterior surface of the geophysical imaging tool 13 and being operable to force at least some water away from the exterior surface of the geophysical imaging tool (fig. 1; col. 2, line 48-col. 3, line 7; col. 5, lines 3-23; col. 1, lines 8-28 state that the tool is used for mapping, which is a form of imaging).
Regarding claim 2, the water exclusion apparatus of claim 1, wherein the water exclusion apparatus 27 is operable by expansion from a first diameter (non-inflated state, which is not shown) to a second diameter that is larger than the first diameter (inflated state in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the water exclusion apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a driver 26 to drive the expansion (26 is an oil pump).
Regarding claim 4, the water exclusion apparatus of claim 1 being an inflatable packer including an inflatable bladder, an inner chamber for accommodating the geophysical imaging tool, a fluid inflation system 25/26 for inflating the bladder, and a connection for coupling to the geophysical imaging tool (fig. 1 shows the unlabeled connection points at the top and the bottom of the bladder 27).
Regarding claim 6, Koelle discloses a method for preparing a geophysical imaging tool 13 for operation in a borehole 11, the method comprising: positioning a geophysical imaging tool in the borehole and manipulating a water exclusion apparatus 27 to remove water from an annular area around the geophysical imaging tool, without removing all the water in the borehole above the tool (fig. 1; col. 2, line 48-col. 3, line 7; col. 5, lines 3-23; col. 1, lines 8-28 state that the tool is used for mapping, which is a form of imaging).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, the method of claim 6 wherein manipulating includes positioning the water exclusion apparatus or the geophysical imaging tool such that the water exclusion apparatus is in the annular area and forces at least some water away from the exterior surface of the geophysical imaging tool (col. 5, lines 3-23).
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 9 wherein inflating expands the water exclusion apparatus close to but out of contact with a wall of the borehole (col. 5, lines 18-20 state that about 1mm of fluid is in the annulus between the bladder and the borehole).
Regarding claim 12, Koelle discloses a wellbore tool for geophysical survey comprising: a geophysical imaging tool 13 including a housing with an interior chamber and an exterior surface radially outwardly of the interior chamber; geophysical survey equipment 32-35 within the interior chamber; and a water exclusion apparatus 27 coupled to the housing, the water exclusion apparatus being operable to force at least some water away from the exterior surface of the geophysical imaging tool (fig. 1; col. 2, line 48-col. 3, line 7; col. 5, lines 3-23; col. 1, lines 8-28 state that the tool is used for mapping, which is a form of imaging).
Regarding claim 13, the wellbore tool for geophysical survey of claim 12, wherein the water exclusion apparatus is operable by expansion from a first diameter (non-inflated state, which is not shown) to a second diameter that is larger than the first diameter (inflated state in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, the wellbore tool for geophysical survey of claim 13, further comprising a driver 26 to drive the expansion (26 is an oil pump).
Regarding claim 15, the wellbore tool for geophysical survey of claim 12, wherein the water exclusion apparatus includes an inflatable packer with an inner chamber for accommodating the exterior surface, a fluid inflation system 25/26 for inflating the inflatable packer, and a connection between the geophysical imaging tool and the inflatable packer (fig. 1 shows the unlabeled connection points at the top and the bottom of the packer 27).
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) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koelle et al in view of US 20120168177 to Moeny.
Koelle teaches the fluid inflation system of claim 15 above, wherein it is taught that the inflation fluid is oil. However, it is not taught what kind of oil is used or the dielectric permittivity of said oil.
Moeny teaches the use of castor oil in a downhole environment, and the oil has a dielectric permittivity of approximately 4.45, which is between the claimed 2 and 5 (paragraph 0136). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use castor oil as taught by Moeny as the oil for inflation of Koelle. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because castor oil was a well-known oil for use in the downhole environment as taught by Moeny.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, 11, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20070296810 teaches a wellbore imaging tool 14 with packers 18 and 20 that keep out fluids from above and below the tool (fig. 1). US 20150136385 teaches wiper 34b scrapes/cleans the imaging tool 22b, wherein fluid flow F is used to rotate the wiper (fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE BOMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7026. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-3:30pm EST M-Th.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/SHANE BOMAR/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights