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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 3/30/26 has been entered. Claims 4-11, and 18-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-28 have been added. Claims 1-3 have been amended. Claims 1-3, 12-17, and 21-28 remain pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 3/30/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 13. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 28 is objected to because “a polycarbonate tube” in line 2 should be --the polycarbonate tube--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 12, 16, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pruett (U.S. 2003/0219190).
Re claim 12:
Pruett discloses a device (100, DTS Calibration system - Para 16 (see Figs. 1-4)), comprising:
a device housing (105, cable - Para 16 (see Figs. 1-2 and Paras 16 and 22));
a fiber Bragg grating (125, 130, Fiber Bragg Grating sensors - Para 17) comprising a plurality of optical fiber sensors (125, 130 (see Para 21)) and carried by the device housing (105)(see Fig. 1 and Paras 16-17);
a fiber Bragg grating interrogator (110, DTS calibration apparatus - Para 16 (see Paras 27-33)) optically coupled to the optical fiber sensors (125, 130)(see Fig. 1 and Paras 26-27); and
a data logger (Para 27 - “…Calibration apparatus 110 may comprise a local or remote data logger…”)) operatively coupled to the fiber Bragg grating interrogator (110)(Paras 27-28);
wherein the fiber Bragg grating interrogator (110) queries the fiber Bragg grating (125, 130) to determine a vertical temperature distribution (see Fig. 4 and Para 34) detected by the fiber Bragg grating (125, 130) that is recorded to a non-transient, computer readable medium (Para 28 - “…data may be…stored for subsequent processing. The analysis and calibration may be carried out, for example, by outputting temperature data from independent DTS and FBG data collection devices Such as those mentioned above to a general purpose computer which assesses the data and performs the necessary calibration…”) by the data logger (at 110 (Para 27 - “…110 may comprise a local or remote data logger…”))(See Figs. 1-4 and Paras 27-34).
Re claim 1:
Pruett discloses the device (100) of claim 12 (as described above), wherein the data logger (at 110 (Para 27 - “…110 may comprise a local or remote data logger…”)) is configured to record a vertical distribution time-series of temperature measurements (410-440, discrete calibration sensor temperature data - Para 34) at a geographic area of interest (135, wellbore - Para 16)(see Figs. 1, 3-4, and Paras 29-34 (especially see Para 32 and 34)).
PNG
media_image1.png
840
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 16:
Pruett discloses the device (100) of claim 12 (as described above), wherein the plurality of optical fiber sensors (125, 130) is positioned along the device housing (105) at predetermined intervals (Para 26) to generate temperature measurements (Para 27) at discrete intervals along a length (Modified Fig. 1 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of length of element 105)) of the device housing (105)(see Modified Fig. 1 above, and Paras 26-27).
Re claim 21:
Pruett discloses the device (100) of claim 12 (as described above), wherein the fiber Bragg grating interrogator (110) is configured to interrogate each optical fiber sensor (125, 130) of the plurality of optical fiber sensors simultaneously (see Fig. 3 at 305 and Paras 28-29 - “…processed in real time…data originating from…calibration sensors 125, 130…”).
Re claim 24:
Pruett discloses the device (100) of claim 12 (as described above), wherein the fiber Bragg grating (125, 130) is encapsulated in a capillary tube (Para 22 - “…outside sheath of cable 10 [sic] is usually incoloy or Stainless Steel and is preferably /4 inch in diameter. The thickness of the metal sheath is approximately 0.035 inch, 0.028 inch, or 0.049 inch. Depending on the environment in question, other materials could be used for the sheath, Such as plastics, glasses, or ceramics, although metal is preferred for the particularly harsh environments occurring within a well bore for its heat transference properties and it mechani cal resilience. In one embodiment, the DTS cable 115 and the calibration fiber 120 are positioned loosely within the sheath, i.e., nothing else appears inside the sheath, which is in effect a hollow tube…”).
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.
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.
Claims 2-3, 13-14, 17, 23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pruett (U.S. 2003/0219190), as applied to claims 1, 12, and 24 above, in view of Sale et al. (U.S. 2015/0233773).
Re claim 2:
Pruett discloses the device (100) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the device (100) is positioned between
Pruett fails to disclose wherein the device is positioned between four and fifteen meters beneath a surface of the geographic area of interest.
Sale teaches wherein a device (300, subsurface thermal monitoring system - Para 78 (see Figs. 3-4 and Para 78)) is positioned between four and fifteen meters beneath a surface (308, ground level - Para 70) of the geographic area of interest (N1, location - Para 78 (see Fig. 78))(see Figs. 3-4 and Paras 78-80).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the device of Pruett after that of Sale, thereby positioning the device of Pruett between four and fifteen meters beneath the surface, as taught by Sale, for the advantage of being able to monitor rate of change of a reactive material within a subsurface formation (Sale, Para 78) and for the advantage of being able to resolve heat fluxes at grade above a LNAPL body and below a LNAPL body (Sale; Para 80).
Re claim 3:
Pruett/Sale teaches the device (Pruett; 100) of claim 2 (as described above).
Pruett further discloses wherein the device (100) is positioned beneath the surface (Modified Fig. 1 above - B) of the geographic area of interest (135) a predefined duration after a thermal equilibrium following a disturbance event resulting from deployment of the device (100)(see Modified Fig. 1 above, Fig. 4, and Para 34 (discrete calibration sensor temperature data depicted by 410-440 shown and referenced in Para 34 necessarily requires that element 100 be in location depicted in Modified Fig. 4 a predefined duration after a type of thermal equilibrium following a type of disturbance event resulting from element 100 being position as shown)).
Re claims 13 and 23:
Pruett discloses the device (100) of claim 12 (as described above).
Pruett fails to disclose wherein the device housing is between one and five meters in length.
Sale teaches wherein a device housing (Para 78 - “…subsurface assemblies of thermocouples, referred to as ‘sticks'…”) is between one and five meters in length (Paras 78-80 (a 37 foot PVC rod includes a portion between one and five meters in length)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the device housing of Pruett after that of Sale, thereby making the device housing be between one and five meters in length, as taught by Sale, for the advantage of being able to monitor rate of change of a reactive material within a subsurface formation (Sale, Para 78) and for the advantage of being able to resolve heat fluxes at grade above a LNAPL body and below a LNAPL body (Sale; Para 80).
Re claim 14:
Pruett discloses the device (100) of claim 12 (as described above), wherein the plurality of optical fiber sensors (125, 130) comprises at least
Pruett fails to disclose wherein the plurality of optical fiber sensors comprises at least three optical fiber sensors.
Sale teaches wherein a plurality of sensors (302, plurality of temperature sensors - Para 71) comprises at least three sensors (see Fig. 3 at 302A-302H and Para 71).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized the plurality of optical fiber sensors of Pruett could have been modeled after the sensors of Sale because both the sensors of Pruett and the sensors of Sale sense temperature (Pruett - See Para 27; Sale - see Para 71).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the sensors of Pruett after those of Sale, thereby making the plurality of optical fiber sensors of Pruett comprise at least three optical fiber sensors, as taught by Sale, for the advantage providing sufficient information to calculate a thermal gradient above a region of reactive material (Sale; Para 71).
Re claim 17:
Pruett discloses the device (100) of claim 12 (as described above).
Pruett fails to disclose wherein the device is situated between four and fifteen meters below a site of interest so as to record a time-series temperature record to determine geothermal heat flux.
Sale teaches wherein a device (Para 78 - “..subsurface assemblies of thermocouples, referred to as “sticks'…” (see Figs. 3, 4, and Para 78)) is situated between four and fifteen meters below a site of interest (see Figs. 3-4 and Para 80) so as to record a time-series temperature record to determine geothermal heat flux (Para 80).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the device of Pruett after that of Sale, thereby making the device of Pruett be situated between four and fifteen meters below a site of interest so as to record a time-series temperature record to determine geothermal heat flux, as taught by Sale, for the advantage of being able to monitor rate of change of a reactive material within a subsurface formation (Sale, Para 78) and for the advantage of being able to resolve heat fluxes at grade above a LNAPL body and below a LNAPL body (Sale; Para 80).
Re claim 25:
Pruett discloses the device (100) of claim 24 (as described above), wherein the capillary tube (at 105) is surrounded by a
Pruett fails to disclose a sand column.
Sale teaches a sand column (Para 79 - “…a coarse sand was added through the hollow drive pipe to fill the annular space between the stick and the subsurface formation…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the column of Pruett after that of Sale, thereby making the column of Pruett a sand column as taught by Sale, for the advantage of providing support to prevent collapse (Sale; Para 79).
Re claim 26:
Pruett/Sale teaches the device (Pruett; 100) of claim 25 (as described above), wherein the sand column (Sale; Para 79 - “…a coarse sand was added through the hollow drive pipe to fill the annular space between the stick and the subsurface formation…”) is surrounded by another tube (Pruett; 140).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pruett (U.S. 2003/0219190), as applied to claims 12 above, in view of Nguyen (U.S. 2018/0367215).
Re claim 15:
Pruett discloses the device (100) of claim 12 (as described above).
Pruett fails to disclose wherein the device housing terminates at a frustoconical head.
Nguyen teaches wherein a device housing (812, housing - Para 104) terminates at a frustoconical head (815, sheath - Para 104)(see Figs. 8-1, 8-2, and Para 104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the device housing of Pruett after that of Nguyen, thereby making the device housing of Pruett terminate at a frustoconical head, as taught by Nguyen, for the advantage of a device housing able to resist various chemicals, ions, and moisture (Nguyen; Para 104).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pruett (U.S. 2003/0219190) in view of Sale et al. (U.S. 2015/0233773), as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Strasser et al. (U.S. 2015/0055926).
Re claim 27:
Pruett/Stale teaches the device (Pruett; 100) of claim 26 (as described above).
Pruett further discloses wherein the another tube (140) comprises a tube (205, splice sleeve - Para 24)(see Figs. 1-2 and Para 24).
Pruett fails to disclose a polycarbonate tube.
Strasser teaches a polycarbonate tube (200, splice puck - Para 44 (“…materials for the splice puck include…polycarbonate…”))(see Fig. 6 and Para 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the tube of Pruett after that of Strasser, thereby making the tube of Pruett a polycarbonate tube as taught by Strasser, for the advantage of being able to eliminate the chance of environmental contamination (Strasser; Para 44).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 28 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 22, and 28 would be allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the device housing encloses each of the plurality of optical fiber sensors, the fiber Bragg grating interrogator, the data logger, the capillary tube, and the polycarbonate tube” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 22.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the capillary tube is surrounded by a silica gel or foam, which is surrounded by a polycarbonate tube” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 28.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by one or more references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 4/10/26
Prosecution Insights