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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have resolved the previously presented claim objections.
Applicant’s amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection, presented below. Applicant’s assertions concerning the teaching of Al-Yami and the set of first/second sample and guard inlets are persuasive.
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 4-5 and 9 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 4 recites “each of the first sample inlet, the first guard inlet, the second sample inlet, and the second guard inlet is configured with a selectively positionable probe block”. It is unclear if “each” of the inlets has a separate “selectively positionable probe block” or whether the sample and guard inlets may share a probe block, as appears to be consistent with the specification. The claim has been interpreted consistent with the specification.
Claim 5 is rejected for dependence from a rejected claim.
Claim 9 recites “a sample bottle”, however, a first/second sample bottle has been recited in the parent claim. It is unclear whether the newly recited sample bottle is the same or different from the first/second sample bottles introduced in the parent claim. The examiner understands them to be the same.
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) 1-4, 8-9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 20210131283 A1), in view of Al-Yami (US 20200256769 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jones teaches an arrangement, comprising:
a body (Fig 5, 10A, see following elements) with a first end (Fig 5, left end) and a second end (Fig 5, right end) and an interface block (Fig 5, housing block of 10A);
a first sample inlet positioned at the first end (Fig 5, 61A) and connected to a first fluid system (Fig 5, flow path from 40 to 90);
a first guard inlet positioned at the first end (Fig 5, 51A) and connected to the first fluid system (Fig 5, flow path from 40 to 90);
at least a first sample bottle connected to the first fluid system (Fig 5, one bottle of the set of 90 e.g. 90A) and a first guard bottle connected to the first fluid system (Fig 5, one bottle of the set of 90 e.g. 90B).
Jones is not explicit on the second sample inlet, guard inlet, fluid system, and bottles.
Al-Yami teaches the second sample inlet, guard inlet, fluid system, and bottles (Fig 2, one set from 210a to the flow lines 206a/220a to bottles set 218a on the second end/left end; note the set characterized by the “b” might be construed as a first set), wherein the first fluid system is independent from the second fluid system (Fig 2 the fluid systems/sets are independent and do not communicate with another).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by the Jones by having plurality of sampling sets, in their relative locations, as disclosed by Al-Yami because it would allow for the sampling of multiple different formations in a zone (Para 0023). Please note in the rejection below, the same reference may be made to the first sets, but the modification is made in view of Al-Yami which teaches the second set. The modification does not propose to change the structure of the inlet of Jones.
Jones as modified by Al-Yami teaches a second sample inlet positioned at the second end (Fig 5, 61A; note the modification of Al-Yami where the second inlet would be the on right side/second end) and connected to a second fluid system (Fig 5, flow path from 40 to 90);
a second guard inlet positioned at the second end (Fig 5, 51A) and connected to the second fluid system (Fig 5, flow path from 40 to 90), wherein the first sample inlet and the first guard inlet are rotated relative the second sample inlet and the second guard inlet (Fig 2 of Al-Yami, the inlets 210b/210a are rotated relative to one another/on opposite ends of the tool); and
at least a second sample bottle connected to the second fluid system and a second guard bottle connected to the second fluid system (Fig 5, one bottle of the set of 90 e.g. 90A).
Regarding claim 2, Jones teaches further comprising a first packer system positioned around the first sample inlet and the first guard inlet and configured to establish a leak-tight seal against a wellbore (Fig 7 of Jones, please note the modification in the parent claim 85A/85A’).
Regarding claim 3, Jones teaches further comprising a second packer system positioned around the second sample inlet and the second guard inlet and configured to establish a second leak-tight seal against the wellbore (Fig 7 of Jones, please note the modification in the parent claim 85A/85A’).
Regarding claim 4, Jones teaches wherein each of the first sample inlet, the first guard inlet, the second sample inlet, and the second guard inlet is configured with a selectively positionable probe block (Fig 5 of Jones, block 20, note the modification of Al-Yami to have a plurality of sets of inlets, as discussed in the parent claim).
Regarding claim 8, Jones teaches wherein the first guard inlet and the second guard inlet are configured to accept a guard fluid and collect the guard fluid in the first guard bottle and the second guard bottle (Fig 5, Para 0059, note also the modification of Al-Yami which teaches a second/separate set of inlets and bottles).
Regarding claim 9, Jones teaches wherein the first sample inlet and the second sample inlet are configured to accept a sample fluid and collect the sample fluid in a sample bottle (Fig 5, Para 0059, note also the modification of Al-Yami which teaches a second/separate set of inlets and bottles).
Regarding claim 12, Jones teaches a computing arrangement configured to transmit and receive signals to an up-hole environment (Fig 5, Para 0062, sensing/transmitting/processing arrangement).
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 20210131283 A1), in view of Al-Yami (US 20200256769 A1), in view of Paramhans (US 20230110594 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Jones as modified is silent on wherein each of the first sample inlet, the first guard inlet, the second sample inlet, and the second guard inlet is further configured with a selectively positionable anchor plate.
Paramhans teaches each of the first sample inlet, the first guard inlet, the second sample inlet, and the second guard inlet is further configured with a selectively positionable anchor plate (Fig 2, plate 216 which anchors by limiting axial movement when engaged against the wall of the wellbore).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Jones by having the selectively positionable anchor plate as disclosed by Paramhans because it would help ensure that fluid is being drawn from the formation as opposed to the annular space.
Regarding claim 13, Jones as modified is silent on at least one scraper configured to scrape material from at least one of the first sample inlet, the first guard inlet, the second sample inlet, or the second guard inlet.
Paramhans teaches at least one scraper configured to scrape material from at least one of the first sample inlet, the first guard inlet, the second sample inlet, or the second guard inlet (Abstract, “scraper associated with one or more of the first extendable probe and the second extendable probe.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Jones by having the screen and scraper as disclosed by Paramhans because the screen would allow the inlet to filter fluid before the fluid enters the port (Para 0005) and the scraper would prevent the screen from getting clogged.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 20210131283 A1), in view of Al-Yami (US 20200256769 A1), in view of Terabayashi (US 20060243047 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Al-Yami is silent on wherein the first sample bottle and the second sample bottle are configured to keep liquid contents of the first sample bottle and the second sample bottle at a specified temperature and pressure.
Terabayashi teaches the wherein the first sample bottle and the second sample bottle are configured to keep liquid contents of the first sample bottle and the second sample bottle at a specified temperature and pressure (Para 0097, “Typically a special sampling chamber or container is necessary to maintain sample pressure and temperature at downhole conditions so as to avoid damage and spoilage of the formation fluid sample.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Jones by having the at least first sample bottle and second sample bottle are configured to keep liquid contents of the bottle at a specified temperature and pressure as disclosed by Terabayashi “so as to avoid damage and spoilage of the formation fluid sample” (Para 0097).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm 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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/THEODORE N YAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights