Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/187,364

DOWNHOLE TOOL, WELL SYSTEM, AND METHOD EMPLOYING A SENSOR POSITIONED PROXIMATE A SPINNING FEATURE OF A DOWNHOLE DEVICE, THE SENSOR CONFIGURED TO SENSE FOR A CHANGE IN NOISE EMANATING FROM THE SPINNING FEATURE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 23, 2025
Examiner
MACDONALD, STEVEN A
Art Unit
3674
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
545 granted / 682 resolved
+27.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
696
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
47.1%
+7.1% vs TC avg
§102
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
§112
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 682 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 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. (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, 5-7, 9-11, 15-17, 19, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by US 20120046866 A1 to Meyer. (Note independent claims are addressed first and like dependent claims grouped together for brevity) Regarding claim 1: Meyer discloses 1. A downhole tool, comprising: a downhole device (ESP pump 146,[0080]), the downhole device including a spinning feature associated therewith ([0078]); and a sensor (120 with 128) positioned proximate the spinning feature of the downhole device (Figure 2), the sensor configured to sense for and send uphole operational data originating from the spinning feature of the downhole device, the operational data in a form of a change in noise emanating from the spinning feature of the downhole device.([0008, 0031] , the system is configured to send data to the surface via 120 to 122 and further analysis by 126) Regarding claim 11: Meyer discloses 11. A well system, comprising: a wellbore 100 extending through one or more subterranean formations (Figure 2); a tubing string104 located in the wellbore; and a downhole tool positioned in the wellbore, the downhole tool including: a downhole device (ESP pump 146,[0080]), the downhole device including a spinning feature associated therewith ([0078]); and a sensor (120 with 128) positioned proximate the spinning feature of the downhole device (Figure 2), the sensor configured to sense for and send uphole operational data originating from the spinning feature of the downhole device, the operational data in a form of a change in noise emanating from the spinning feature of the downhole device.([0008, 0031] , the system is configured to send data to the surface via 120 to 122 and further analysis by 126) Regarding claim 23: Meyer discloses 23. A method, comprising: positioning a downhole tool within a wellbore 100 having a tubing string 104, the downhole tool including: a downhole device (ESP pump 146,[0080]), the downhole device including a spinning feature associated therewith ([0078]); and a sensor (120 with 128) positioned proximate the spinning feature of the downhole device (Figure 2), and sensing for and sending uphole operation data originating from the spinning feature of the downhole device, the operational data in a form of a change in noise emanating from the spinning feature of the downhole device. (Claim 1 and [0008, 0031] , the system sends sensor data to the surface via 120 to 122 and further analysis by 126). Regarding claims 5 and 15: Meyer discloses wherein the change in noise is a change in acoustic noise, a change in vibration noise, a change in electronic noise, or a change in mechanical noise emanating from the spinning feature. [0008], [0078] Regarding claims 6 and 16: Meyer discloses wherein the change in noise is a change in fluidic noise emanating from the spinning feature. [0078] Regarding claims 7 and 17: Meyer discloses wherein the operational data is a health of the spinning feature [0078 and 0081], type of fluid driving the spinning feature, composition of fluid driving the spinning feature, density of fluid driving the spinning feature, viscosity of fluid driving the spinning feature, volume of fluid driving the spinning feature, or flow rate of fluid driving the spinning feature. Regarding claims 9 and 19: Meyer discloses wherein the sensor is a distributed acoustic sensor (DAS) cable.[0049-0050], as best understood the system disclosed is distributed acoustic sensor (DAS) cable.) Regarding claims 10 and 21: Meyer discloses wherein the sensor is a distributed fiber optic sensor (DFOS) cable 120.([0010], [0048], as best understood the system disclosed is a distributed fiber optic sensor cable) 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) 2, 12 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120046866 A1 to Meyer in view of US 20230167692 A1 Al-Mousa and US 20180058209 A1 to Song. Regarding claims 2, 12 and 24: Meyer discloses the claimed invention except wherein the spinning feature is a spinning turbine. However, in the embodiment of figure 4, Meyer teaches downhole control valves, that can be operated by hydraulic or electrical means [0102] that can be monitor by fiber optic cable 520 [0106] Al-Mouasa teaches downhole flow control valves that include one or more sensors, including a flow meter [0006]. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Meyer to include with his flow control valve, one or more sensors, including a flow meter, in view of Al-Mousa, so as to monitor the status of the downhole control valve and it’s operating conditions, such as flow rate etc. This would amount to no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Al-Mouasa is not specific as to the details of the sensors, including the flow meter. Song teaches that a downhole flow meter in a wellbore can be a “spinner” or “axial turbine flow meter” [0160]. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have, when modifying Meyer with Al-Mousa, to use for the flow meter, a “spinner” or “axial turbine flow meter”, in view of Song, as these type of flow meters are notoriously conventional and would amount to no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The above combination is interpreted as teaching the limitation of “wherein the spinning feature is a spinning turbine”. Claim(s) 3-4, 13-14 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120046866 A1 to Meyer in view of US 20230167692 A1 Al-Mousa and US 20180058209 A1 to Song further in evidence of or alternatively in view of EP 0744527 A1 to OPPELT and US 20200295640 A1 to Tegeler Regarding claims 3-4, 13-14 and 25-26: Meyer discloses the claimed invention except wherein the spinning turbine is a spinning power turbine of a downhole power source. However, in the embodiment of figure 4, Meyer teaches downhole control valves, that can be operated by hydraulic or electrical means [0102] that can be monitor by fiber optic cable 520 [0106] Al-Mouasa teaches downhole flow control valves that include one or more sensors, including a flow meter [0006]. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Meyer to include with his flow control valve, one or more sensors, including a flow meter, in view of Al-Mousa, so as to monitor the status of the downhole control valve and it’s operating conditions, such as flow rate etc. This would amount to no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Al-Mouasa is not specific as to the details of the sensors, including the flow meter. Song teaches that a downhole flow meter in a wellbore can be a “spinner” or “axial turbine flow meter” [0160]. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have, when modifying Meyer with Al-Mousa, to use for the flow meter, a “spinner” or “axial turbine flow meter”, in view of Song, as these type of flow meters are notoriously conventional and would amount to no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The above combination is interpreted as teaching the limitation of “wherein the spinning feature is a spinning turbine”. Oppelt teaches that a turbine flow meter acts by driving a generator to produce a voltage which can be used by other components.(Col 2, lines 14-27). As such, the axial turbine flow meter, taught by Song is interpreted as being a downhole power source. If one were to argue, It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Meyer and use the axial turbine flow meter to generate power downhole, in view of Oppelt, so that other components could be powered by the flow of fluid. Furthermore, it is well known that power generators involve spinning rotors within a stationary stator. Tegeler gives evidence that downhole power generation by fluid flow can involve rotating a turbine by flow to turn a rotor to generate power [0028][0048]. It is interpreted that in the axial turbine flow meter of Song includes a rotor attached to the turbine, and thus the combination teaches the claimed limitations. Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120046866 A1 to Meyer in view of US 20160084062 A1 to NEGRE. Regarding claims 8 and 18: Meyer discloses wherein the sensor is a hydrophone [0035-0036], however fails to disclose an electric cable employing an electronic hydrophone NEGRE teaches a downhole monitoring system with hydrophones connected via electric cable 105 [0005]. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified and used electric hydrophone sensors with an electric cable, in view of NEGRE, so as to perform monitoring of a wellbore and allow for the replacement of a failed sensor [0010] Claim(s) 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120046866 A1 to Meyer. Regarding claims 20 and 22: Meyer discloses further including an upper completion and a lower completion associated with the tubing string (Figure 2, above and below packer 116), a junction being formed between the upper completion and the lower completion (at packer 116, though the junction appears to be arbitrary), and further wherein the distributed acoustic sensor (DAS) cable extends from a surface of the wellbore to an annulus between the spinning feature and the wellbore.(Figure 2) However Meyer does not explicitly disclose where the spinning feature is below the junction. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date (AIA ) to have modified Meyes and moved his pump to a location below the junction to and upper and lower completion, in view of Meyer, as no more than a design choice for the location of the pump with regard to a junction. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210087928 A1 discloses a fiber optic wellbore monitoring system. US 11746627 B1 discloses a downhole flow controller with sensing and power harvesting, US 20240133753 A1 discloses a fiber sensor for acoustic sensing. US 20020066309 A1 discloses a fiber sensor for wellbore tools. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MACDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 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, 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. /STEVEN A MACDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 23, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601233
TUBING ANCHOR INCLUDING SLIPS ACTUATED BY SEGMENTED CONE SECTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601231
DISSOLVABLE BALLAST FOR UNTETHERED DOWNHOLE TOOLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584372
ANCHORING PLUGGING DEVICES TO PERFORATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584362
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR A FRAC PLUG
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584380
COMBINATION LANDING AND FLOAT COLLAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+13.4%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 682 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month