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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 11-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 20030098156 to Follini et al.
Regarding claim 1, Follini discloses a system comprising: a formation testing tool comprising: a probe 431, wherein the probe comprises a rubber 437 disposed on an outer perimeter of the probe and an inflatable barrier 430 disposed between the rubber and a central area of the probe (fig. 8; paragraphs 0043-0048).
Regarding claim 4, the system of claim 1, wherein a shape of the inflatable barrier comprises a shape that can be modified in real time (paragraphs 0043-0048 state that the barrier 430 is pressed/sealed against the wellbore wall when inflated; it is notoriously known to those of ordinary skill that a seal, when pressed against an object, will have its shape change to at least a certain degree, and in real time).
Regarding claim 11, the system of claim 1, further comprising at least one chamber 420 comprising a fluid to inflate the inflatable barrier (paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 12, the system of claim 1, wherein the formation testing tool further comprises only one flow line 432 in fluid communication with the probe (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 13, the system of claim 1, wherein the formation testing tool further comprises only one pump 29 in fluid communication with the probe (paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 14, the system of claim 1, further comprising at least one sensor 450 (paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 17, Follini discloses a system comprising: a probe 431, wherein the probe comprises a rubber 437 disposed on an outer perimeter of the probe and an inflatable barrier 430 disposed between the rubber and a central area of the probe; a single flow line 432 fluidly connected to the probe; a pump 29 fluidly connected to the probe; and a sensor 450 (fig. 8; paragraphs 0028 and 0043-0048).
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) 2-3 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Follini et al in view of US 20130213645 to Proett et al.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Follini teaches the inflatable barrier 430 from claims 1 and 17 above. While it is taught that the barrier 430 is a seal, it is not explicitly taught what material the seal is made of.
Proett teaches a seal 58 in a probe 50 similar to that of Follini, wherein it is further taught that the seal is made of rubber (fig. 3; paragraph 0034). 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 rubber as taught by Proett as the material for the barrier of Follini. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because rubber was a well-known material for downhole probe seals due to being compatible with the well fluids, as taught by Proett.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Follini teaches the inflatable barrier 430 from claims 1 and 17 above. Since figure 8 only shows the barrier in cross-section, the exact shape of the barrier is not specifically known.
Proett teaches a seal 58 in a probe 50 similar to that of Follini, wherein it is further taught that the seal has a rectangular and/or elliptical shape (fig. 3). 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 the shape of the seal as taught by Proett as the shape for the barrier of Follini. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the shapes taught by Proett were well-known shapes for downhole probe seals. Additionally, it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the shape of the inflatable barrier be circular, rectangular, or elliptical, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Follini et al in view of US 20170022809 to Garcia et al.
Follini teaches the sensor 450 from claim 14 above, with the sensor only being described as a pressure sensor (paragraph 0048).
Garcia teaches a pressure sensor for a downhole probe similar to that of Follini, wherein it is further taught that the sensor can comprise optical, viscosity, and/or resistivity (paragraph 0023). 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 any of the sensors as taught by Garcia as the sensor of Follini. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because these types of sensors were well-known for use with downhole probes measure the properties of the fluid being sampled, as taught by Garcia.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Follini et al in view of US 20030141055 to Paluch et al.
Follini teaches the inflatable barrier from claim 1 above but does not specifically teach that there is a timer to trigger the inflation.
Paluch teaches a downhole fluid sampler similar to that of Follini, wherein it is further taught that a timer 31 is used to initiate certain sequences in the sampling process, such as inflation (paragraph 0081). 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 the timer as taught by Paluch in the system of Follini. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because timers were well-known for use with downhole probes to control the sequence of sampling steps, as taught by Paluch.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 20 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 20260139588 teaches an outer sealing pad 412 with an inner probe are 402 (fig. 4). US 20130255367 teaches a sensor 79, flow line in 63, inflatable barrier 59, and pump in housing 61 (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