Detailed Action
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because figure 1 use numbered rectangular/circular boxes to represent some elements, and the numbered boxes do not include a label to indicate what each box represents. All numbered rectangular/circular boxes must include a label in addition to the number describing what each box represents so one of ordinary skill in the art could quickly identify what each box represents. Therefore, box 106 in figure 1 must include the label “surface control and telemetry system” in addition to the number 106. No new matter should be entered
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Objections
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, the claim recites in line 5 “on the acoustic communication medium”. The word “communication” should be plural because the limitation is written as plural in line 2. For this reason, the claim is objected. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to claim(s) 2-10, the claim(s) is/are objected due to its/their dependency on objected claim 1.
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(s) 1-10 and 18-19 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 1, the claim recites in line 12 “reconstruct the message”. The claim defines messages in line 2 and a message in line 4. It is unclear if the limitation of line 12 is referring to one of the messages defined in line 2 or to the message defined in line 4. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: line 4 “an acoustic signal to transmit a first message” and line 12 “reconstruct the first message”.
In regards to claim(s) 2-10, the claim(s) is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency on indefinite claim 1.
In regards to claim 18, the claim recites in line 2-3 “to reconstruct the message”. The word “the” in front of the limitation(s) “message” means that the limitation(s) was/were previously defined. However, the limitation(s) was/were not previously defined. For this reason, the limitation(s) lack of antecedent basis and the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “to reconstruct [[the]] a message”.
In regards to claim(s) 19, the claim(s) is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency on indefinite claim 18.
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) 11, 13-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maclean et al. (US-2025/0116189).
In regards to claim 11, Maclean teaches a system for performing a downhole operation in a wellbore, the system comprising a control and telemetry system to control and monitor a downhole operation and downhole equipment located in the wellbore to observe a parameter of interest associated with the downhole operation [par. 0026 L. 1-5, par. 0027 L. 1-10]. Also, Maclean teaches that the system comprises first and second acoustic modems coupled to an acoustic transmission medium at respective locations extending between the control and telemetry system and the downhole equipment [par. 0026 L. 1-5, par. 0027 L. 1-10]. Furthermore, Maclean teaches that the first acoustic modem transmits an acoustic signal carrying telemetry information from the downhole equipment [par. 0027 L. 1-5]. Maclean further teaches that the second acoustic modem receives the acoustic signal on a plurality of receiver channels, wherein each receiver channel comprises an acoustic sensor deployed at a unique location in order to provide spatial diversity [fig. 4 element 102, fig. 8 elements 102, fig. 10 element 102, par. 0037 L. 1-13, par. 0039 L. 1-16].
In regards to claim 13, Maclean, as applied in the rejection of claim 11 above, further teaches that the acoustic sensors are deployed at spaced apart locations along the acoustic communications medium to provide spatial diversity [see Maclean fig. 10 elements 102, par. 0036 L. 10-15, par. 0037 L. 1-5].
In regards to claim 14, Maclean, as applied in the rejection of claim 13 above, further teaches that the locations are spaced apart in an axial direction of the acoustic communications medium [see Maclean fig. 10 elements 102, par. 0036 L. 10-15, par. 0037 L. 1-5].
In regards to claim 15, Maclean, as applied in the rejection of claim 13 above, further teaches that the locations are spaced apart in a radial direction of the acoustic communications medium [see Maclean fig. 8 element 102].
In regards to claim 16, Maclean, as applied in the rejection of claim 11 above, further teaches that the acoustic sensors are deployed with different axial orientations along the acoustic communications medium [see Maclean fig. 5 elements 102, par. 0049 L. 8-18].
In regards to claim 20, Maclean, as applied in the rejection of claim 11 above, further teaches that the first modem and the second modem comprise a transmitter and a receiver (transceiver) [see Maclean fig. 2, par. 0031 L. 4-7, par. 0032 L. 1-4, par. 0192].
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maclean et al. (US-2025/0116189) in view of Ebenezer (US-10,885,907).
In regards to claim 1, Maclean teaches a method of communicating in an acoustic communication system that comprises at least two (a plurality) of acoustic modems that exchange messages on an acoustic communications medium deployed in a borehole [fig. 1 elements 11 and 12, par. 0026 L. 1-9, par. 0027 L. 1-5, par. 0028, par. 0029 L. 4-9]. Also, Maclean teaches that the method comprises transmitting, by a first acoustic modem, an acoustic signal to transmit a first message on the acoustic communication medium deployed in the borehole [par. 0027 L. 1-5]. Furthermore, Maclean teaches that the method comprises receiving, by a second acoustic modem, the acoustic signal on a plurality of receiver channels, wherein each receiver channel comprises an acoustic sensor [fig. 4 element 102, par. 0037 L. 1-13, par. 0039 L. 1-16]. Maclean further teaches that the plurality of receiver channels are deployed along the acoustic communications medium in a manner to provide spatial diversity [fig. 8 elements 102, fig. 10 element 102, par. 0037 L. 1-13, par. 0039 L. 1-16].
Maclean teaches that the first message is reconstructed based on the signals received in the plurality of receiver channels [par. 0187]. However, the combination does not teach that the method comprises combining the acoustic signal received on the plurality of receiver channels to reconstruct the first message.
On the other hand, Ebenezer teaches an acoustic system that uses spatial diversity to receive acoustic signals [col. 2 L. 15-20]. Ebenezer teaches that the message is reconstructed by combining the acoustic signal received on the plurality of receiver channels, wherein combining comprises filtering noise from the acoustic signal [abstract 9-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Ebenezer’s teachings of combining the acoustic signal received on the plurality of receiver channels and filter noise in the method taught by Maclean because it will permit the system to reconstruct the message reliably without errors.
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Maclean and Ebenezer, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the acoustic sensors are deployed at spaced apart locations along the acoustic communications medium to provide spatial diversity [see Maclean fig. 10 elements 102, par. 0036 L. 10-15, par. 0037 L. 1-5].
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Maclean and Ebenezer, as applied in the rejection of claim 3 above, further teaches that the locations are spaced apart in an axial direction of the acoustic communications medium [see Maclean fig. 10 elements 102, par. 0036 L. 10-15, par. 0037 L. 1-5].
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Maclean and Ebenezer, as applied in the rejection of claim 3 above, further teaches that the locations are spaced apart in a radial direction of the acoustic communications medium [see Maclean fig. 8 element 102].
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Maclean and Ebenezer, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the acoustic sensors are deployed with different axial orientations along the acoustic communications medium [see Maclean fig. 5 elements 102, par. 0049 L. 8-18].
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Maclean and Ebenezer, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the first modem and the second modem comprise a transmitter and a receiver (transceiver) [see Maclean fig. 2, par. 0031 L. 4-7, par. 0032 L. 1-4, par. 0192].
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maclean et al. (US-2025/0116189) in view of Ebenezer (US-10,885,907) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Gao (US-9,822,634).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Maclean and Ebenezer, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the acoustic sensors comprise one or more accelerometers [see Maclean par. 0032 L. 11-13, par. 0037 L. 17-28]. However, the combination does not teach that the accelerometers are three-dimensional accelerometers.
On the other hand, Gao teaches that accelerometers used to detect acoustic signals can be three-axis (dimensional) accelerometers [col. 3 L. 40-47].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Gao’s teachings of using three dimensional accelerometers in the method taught by the combination because it will permit each acoustic to sense the acoustic signal reliably.
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Maclean and Ebenezer, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the combining comprises filtering signals based on a propagation mode.
On the other hand, Gao teaches that the use of plurality of acoustic sensors can help the system to filter signals based on a propagation mode [col. 3 L. 47-58].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Gao’s teachings of filtering signals based on propagation mode in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to process only signals that have data.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maclean et al. (US-2025/0116189) in view of Ebenezer (US-10,885,907) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Croux (US-9,670,773).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Maclean and Ebenezer, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the transmitting comprises transmitting duplicate acoustic signals on a plurality of different frequencies.
On the other hand, Croux teaches that an acoustic signal can transmit redundant signals on a plurality of different frequencies [col. 5 L. 54-57, col. 7 L. 6-18].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Croux’s teachings of using frequency diversity to transmit the acoustic signal in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to transmit and receive data reliably without errors.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maclean et al. (US-2025/0116189) in view of Ebenezer (US-10,885,907) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Waggener (US-4,215,425).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Maclean and Ebenezer, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the combining comprises discriminating signals based on a propagation direction.
On the other hand, Waggener teaches that the system can reject noise signals that have a propagation direction that is opposed to the acoustic signal [col. 6 L. 4-12]. This teaching means that the method comprises discriminating signals based on a propagation direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Waggener’s teachings of filtering noise signals having a different propagation direction than the acoustic signal in the method taught by the combination because it will permit the system to better determine the acoustic signal that has the message.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maclean et al. (US-2025/0116189) as applied to claim(s) 11 above, and in view of Gao (US-9,822,634).
In regards to claim 12, Maclean and Ebenezer, as applied in the rejection of claim 11 above, further teaches that the acoustic sensors comprise one or more accelerometers [see Maclean par. 0032 L. 11-13, par. 0037 L. 17-28]. However, the combination does not teach that the accelerometers are three-dimensional accelerometers.
On the other hand, Gao teaches that accelerometers used to detect acoustic signals can be three-axis (dimensional) accelerometers [col. 3 L. 40-47].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Gao’s teachings of using three dimensional accelerometers in the system taught by the combination because it will permit each acoustic to sense the acoustic signal reliably.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maclean et al. (US-2025/0116189) as applied to claim(s) 11 above, and in view of Croux (US-9,670,773).
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Maclean and Ebenezer, as applied in the rejection of claim 11 above, does not teach that the transmitting comprises transmitting duplicate acoustic signals on a plurality of different frequencies.
On the other hand, Croux teaches that an acoustic signal can transmit redundant signals on a plurality of different frequencies [col. 5 L. 54-57, col. 7 L. 6-18].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Croux’s teachings of using frequency diversity to transmit the acoustic signal in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to transmit and receive data reliably without errors.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maclean et al. (US-2025/0116189) as applied to claim(s) 11 above, and further in view of Ebenezer (US-10,885,907) and Waggener (US-4,215,425).
In regards to claim 18, Maclean, as applied in the rejection of claim 11 above, further that the first message is reconstructed based on the signals received in the plurality of receiver channels [par. 0187]. However, the combination does not teach that the system is configured to combine the acoustic signal received on the plurality of receiver channels to reconstruct the message.
On the other hand, Ebenezer teaches an acoustic system that uses spatial diversity to receive acoustic signals [col. 2 L. 15-20]. Ebenezer teaches that the message is reconstructed by combining the acoustic signal received on the plurality of receiver channels, wherein combining comprises filtering noise from the acoustic signal [abstract 9-17]. This teaching means that the system is configured to combine the acoustic signal received on the plurality of receiver channels to reconstruct the message, wherein combining comprises filtering noise from the acoustic signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Ebenezer’s teachings of combining the acoustic signal received on the plurality of receiver channels and filter noise in the method taught by Maclean because it will permit the system to reconstruct the message reliably without errors.
The combination of Maclean and Ebenezer does not teach that the combining comprises discriminating signals based on a propagation direction.
On the other hand, Waggener teaches that the system can reject noise signals that have a propagation direction that is opposed to the acoustic signal [col. 6 L. 4-12]. This teaching means that the method comprises discriminating signals based on a propagation direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Waggener’s teachings of filtering noise signals having a different propagation direction than the acoustic signal in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to better determine the acoustic signal that has the message.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maclean et al. (US-2025/0116189) in view of Ebenezer (US-10,885,907) and Waggener (US-4,215,425) as applied to claim(s) 18 above, and further in view of Gao (US-9,822,634).
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Maclean, Ebenezer and Waggener, as applied in the rejection of claim 18 above, does not teach that the combining comprises filtering signals based on a propagation mode.
On the other hand, Gao teaches that the use of plurality of acoustic sensors can help the system to filter signals based on a propagation mode [col. 3 L. 47-58].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Gao’s teachings of filtering signals based on propagation mode in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to process only signals that have data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights