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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 6-7 directed towards the previous 112(a) rejections,
Applicant asserts that the receivers may measure all three cartesian coordinates because the measurements from the same receivers are at a different time or azimuthal location. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously explained and supported by evidence, the system of Figure 8, which is the constructively elected embodiment, is not capable of generating and detecting magnetic fields in the x, y, and z axes. Even if the measurements occur at different times and at different azimuthal locations, the transmitter and receiver coils are rotating together. As such, they do not move relative to each other, and thus the receiver coils will at most detect two magnetic field axes at all times. Applicant, respectfully, does not present any evidence or explanation to demonstrate why the system will detect three cartesian coordinates.
Applicant then argues that the application of bins eliminates the need for equation (1). The Examiner notes what is disclosed, but the Examiner also respectively notes that the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the bins are implemented to allow for the identification of any increase or reduction in metal as claimed. Paragraph [0051] states that “In examples, measurements are divided into angular bins and measurements that fall into a certain bin are averaged together to increase signal to noise ratio.” Paragraph [0052] explains “A so-called “geosignal” may be obtained by subtracting from each bin the measurement from the bin exactly opposite of it (at a 180° angle.). This method is depicted in FIG. 9. As illustrated in FIG. 9, it is common to denote bins as “up” and “down” when using geosignals. This up and down definition is customary and would be with respect to an azimuthal reference on EM logging tool 400. In a homogeneous or symmetric formation, such a geosignal may not change with azimuth. However, if fiber optic cable 104 is present, azimuthal bin 900 may be numbered by a bin. Azimuthal bin 900 is a top down view of casing 108.”
However, none of the above explanation ever references to an identification of an increase or decrease in metal as claimed. Instead, the above explanation is solely directed towards the detection of whether a fiber optic cable is present. However, whether such a cable is present does not mean that such a method can identify an increase or decrease in metal, or that any explanation of how such an increase or decrease can even be used for such a purpose.
Furthermore, the above does not reasonably explain the manner in which any of the bins are used to detect a fiber optic cable. While applicant does state that a geosignal is obtained by subtracting certain data from within bins, applicant does not reasonably explain what applicant then does with that subtraction to detect a fiber optic cable or any other object. Instead, applicant essentially jumps from the above noted subtraction to stating that the fiber optic cable may be numbered within a bin, with no further explanation as to what that means, how relates to the geosignal, or how the bins relates to the fiber optic cable. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the arguments directed towards Guner et al. (Guner) (US 2020/0319362). or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Guner et al. (Guner) (US 2020/0319362) in view of Donderici (US 2015/0338542) on page 7,
Applicant first argues that the application properly claims priority, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees as the newly amended claims introduce new matter to the instant application and are not reasonably supported by the parent or instant application.
Applicant argues that a person skilled in the art could understand would understand that nine component vectors are acquired, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously explained, the system is not reasonably capable of obtaining all nine components because the transmitter rotates with the receivers. Applicant does not disclose that the use of bins overcomes this issue nor explains why or how such bins would allow this issue to be overcome. Furthermore, applicant earlier expressly argues that the bins remove the need for equation (1), but where it is this equation that uses and requires the nine components.
With regard to the arguments directed towards Khalaj Amineh et al. (Khalaj) (US 2019/0004012) in view of Donderici (US 2015/0338542) on pages 7-8,
First, the Examiner respectfully notes that the newly amended claims introduce new matter. Nowhere in the original disclosure does it state the forming of two or more bins to yield a 360-degree angle tangential to the mandrel, or that the measurements for each bin are recorded at a different time or azimuth location. While the disclosure does state that bins can be obtained, at no point does it state over what angular range they are obtained, that they are obtained at different times, or how many are obtained.
That stated, as best understood, a bin is just data obtained from the measurements, and Khalaj is expressly disclosed to obtain measurements during the rotation of the device (paragraph [0018]). While it is unclear what is meant by a 360-degree angle tangential to the mandrel, it is presumed that such a feature is referring to obtaining bins over a 360 degree rotation. The prior art performs this feature. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/777,822, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
As to Claims 1 and 11,
The phrase “forming at least two or more bins to yield a 360-degree angle tangential to the mandrel, wherein each bin comprises at least one electromagnetic field measurements, and wherein the electromagnetic field measurements for each bin was record at a different time or a different azimuthal location; and identifying a direction to azimuthally located reduction in metal or increase in metal with at least a comparison between the two or more electromagnetic field measurements at the two or more bins” on lines 16 to the end of Claim 1 and the similar feature on lines 15 to the end of Claim 11 are not supported in the parent application.
The parent application does not reasonably disclose the forming of a 360-degree angle tangential to the mandrel from two or more bins, the bins recorded at a different time or different location, and the identifying of a direction to an azimuthally located reduction in metal or increase in metal with a comparison between the measurements at the bins as claimed.
Paragraph [0050] states that “In examples, measurements are divided into angular bins and measurements that fall into a certain bin are averaged together to increase signal to noise ratio.” Paragraph [0051] explains “A so-called “geosignal” may be obtained by subtracting from each bin the measurement from the bin exactly opposite of it (at a 180° angle.). This method is depicted in FIG. 9. As illustrated in FIG. 9, it is common to denote bins as “up” and “down” when using geosignals. This up and down definition is customary and would be with respect to an azimuthal reference on EM logging tool 400. In a homogeneous or symmetric formation, such a geosignal may not change with azimuth. However, if fiber optic cable 104 is present, azimuthal bin 900 may be numbered by a bin. Azimuthal bin 900 is a top down view of casing 108.”
First, the above explanation is essentially the entirety of what is disclosed, and this explanation does not reasonably provide support for using two or more bins to form a 360-degree angle tangential to the mandrel. In fact, nowhere does the application make any mention of a 360-degree angle tangential to the mandrel, let alone one that is formed from bins. To the extent that applicant is referring to the circular pattern in Figure 9, this pattern merely shows a plurality of bins, which are not referenced to any angle. Even if these bins did represent 360 degrees in total, no two bins could reasonably form the full 360 degrees of rotation around the circular shape, and in fact all of the bins, which far exceed two bins are needed.
Second, the parent disclosure is completely silent as to how these bins are obtained. There is no disclosure if they are formed at the same time, different times, or at a different location. These bins could be formed all at once and at one location as the coils are 360 degrees around the mandrel. As such, what is claimed is not inherent.
Third, applicant does not reasonably disclose that the reduction in metal or increase is metal is made “with at least a comparison between the two or more electromagnetic field measurements at the two or more bins.” Applicant does not disclose the use of a comparison for the above claimed purpose, nor that more than comparison was used for such a purpose. Note that by claiming “with at least a comparison,” applicant is claiming that more than just the comparison was used, but where the parent disclosure does not reasonably support this phrase.
Lastly, none of the above explanation ever references an identification of an increase or decrease in metal as claimed. Instead, the above explanation is solely directed towards the detection of whether a fiber optic cable is present. However, whether such a cable is present does not mean that such a method can identify an increase or decrease in metal, or that any explanation of how such an increase or decrease can even be used for such a purpose.
The parent application therefore fails to provide support for the above claim feature. Because all dependent claims incorporate the above claim feature, all dependent claims must also therefore lack support in the parent application.
As to Claims 4 and 14,
The phrases “calculating a change of a phase and an attenuation of the one or more secondary electromagnetic fields between the one or more receivers” in lines 1-3 of Claim 4 and “the information handling system is configured to calculate a change of a phase and an attenuation of the one or more secondary electromagnetic fields between the one or more receivers” in lines 2-4 of Claim 14 is not reasonably supported in the parent application, in the combination.
Applicant does not originally disclose the use of the above phase and attenuation calculation when the bin embodiment is relied upon. Nowhere in the bin embodiment does applicant explain the use of phase and attenuation as claimed or how such features would be used within the bin embodiment. The original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which these features are used or otherwise relate to the now claimed bin embodiment of Claims 1 and 11.
As to Claims 5 and 6,
The phrase “removing a primary signal from a secondary signal with at least one or more bucking antennas” on lines 1-2 of Claim 5 and the phrase “the one or more receivers comprise one or more bucking antennas” on lines 1-2 of Claim 6 are not reasonably supported by the parent application, in the combination.
Applicant has now limited the claims to those using bins, but where the bucking antennas are not reasonably disclosed to be used with the bins embodiment. As best understood, and in light of paragraph [0051], bucking antennas are not disclosed to be used with the bins. As such, this phrase is not reasonably supported by the parent application.
As to Claim 17,
The phrase “the information handling system is further configured to invert the direction and a distance to the azimuthally localized reduction in metal or increase in metal using the one or more electromagnetic fields” on lines 1-4 is not reasonably supported by the parent application, in the combination.
At issue here is that applicant does not originally disclose the use of inverting any direction or distance to the azimuthally localized reduction in metal or increase in metal using the one or more electromagnetic fields when using the bins and geosignal embodiment. The parent disclosure does not reasonably make this connection, nor reasonably explain the manner in which such a feature would reasonably be implemented with the now claims bins and identification of a change in metal based on a comparison now recited in Claim 11. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant has possession or support for this claim feature, in the combination. As such, this phrase is not reasonably supported by the parent application.
As to Claims 10 and 20,
The phrase “the azimuthally localized increase in metal is due to a cable” on lines 1-2 is not reasonably supported by the parent application. For the reasons noted above, applicant does not reasonably originally disclose the use of bins or a comparison as claimed to identify an increase in metal in a cable. This phrase is therefore not reasonably supported by the parent application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claims 1 and 11,
The phrase “forming at least two or more bins to yield a 360-degree angle tangential to the mandrel, wherein each bin comprises at least one electromagnetic field measurements, and wherein the electromagnetic field measurements for each bin was record at a different time or a different azimuthal location; and identifying a direction to azimuthally located reduction in metal or increase in metal with at least a comparison between the two or more electromagnetic field measurements at the two or more bins” on lines 16 to the end of Claim 1 and the similar feature on lines 15 to the end of Claim 11 introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
As to new matter,
The instant application does not reasonably disclose the forming of a 360-degree angle tangential to the mandrel from two or more bins, the bins recorded at a different time or different location, and the identifying of a direction to an azimuthally located reduction in metal or increase in metal with a comparison between the measurements at the bins as claimed.
Paragraph [0051] states that “In examples, measurements are divided into angular bins and measurements that fall into a certain bin are averaged together to increase signal to noise ratio.” Paragraph [0052] explains “A so-called “geosignal” may be obtained by subtracting from each bin the measurement from the bin exactly opposite of it (at a 180° angle.). This method is depicted in FIG. 9. As illustrated in FIG. 9, it is common to denote bins as “up” and “down” when using geosignals. This up and down definition is customary and would be with respect to an azimuthal reference on EM logging tool 400. In a homogeneous or symmetric formation, such a geosignal may not change with azimuth. However, if fiber optic cable 104 is present, azimuthal bin 900 may be numbered by a bin. Azimuthal bin 900 is a top down view of casing 108.”
First, the above explanation is essentially the entirety of what is disclosed, and this explanation does not reasonably provide support for using two or more bins to form a 360-degree angle tangential to the mandrel. In fact, nowhere does the application make any mention of a 360-degree angle tangential to the mandrel, let alone one that is formed from bins. To the extent that applicant is referring to the circular pattern in Figure 9, this pattern merely shows a plurality of bins, which are not referenced to any angle. Even if these bins did represent 360 degrees in total, no two bins could reasonably form the full 360 degrees of rotation around the circular shape, and in fact all of the bins, which far exceed two bins are needed.
Second, the instant disclosure is completely silent as to how these bins are obtained. There is no disclosure if they are formed at the same time, different times, or at a different location. These bins could be formed all at once and at one location as the coils are 360 degrees around the mandrel. As such, what is claimed is not inherent.
Third, applicant does not reasonably disclose that the reduction in metal or increase is metal is made “with at least a comparison between the two or more electromagnetic field measurements at the two or more bins.” Applicant does not disclose the use of a comparison for the above claimed purpose, nor that more than comparison was used for such a purpose. Note that by claiming “with at least a comparison,” applicant is claiming that more than just the comparison was used, but where the original disclosure does not reasonably support this phrase.
Lastly, none of the above explanation ever references an identification of an increase or decrease in metal as claimed, including the use of any comparison between measurements. Instead, the above explanation is solely directed towards the detection of whether a fiber optic cable is present. However, whether such a cable is present does not mean that such a method can identify an increase or decrease in metal, or that any explanation of how such an increase or decrease can even be used for such a purpose. Furthermore, while a geosignal is disclosed to be obtained from a subtraction between measurements, it is not disclosed to be used to identify any increase or decrease in metal as claimed.
As such, the above phrase introduces new matter as it is not reasonably supported by the original disclosure.
As to written description,
Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the bins themselves are obtained. The original disclosure explains that measurements are divided into angular bins and that measurements that fall into certain bins are averaged together (paragraph [0051]), but no further explanation is provided. A measurement is an analog signal that is obtained from a receiver coil, and thus such a signal is not reasonably a “bin.” Applicant must do something with this signal in order to turn it into a bin, but where no explanation is provided as to this process to reasonably demonstrate possession. Further, stating that “certain bins are averaged together” with no further explanation raises an issue, as it does not reasonably demonstrate which bins are selected for averaging and why they are selected. Merely stating that certain bins are selected for averaging without a further explanation raises an issue because there is therefore no reasonable disclosure as to what each bin contains and whether any particular bin is or is not averaged.
Additionally, while a geosignal is disclosed to be obtained from a subtraction between measurements, there is no disclosure as to the manner in which this or any other geosignal is used to identify any increase or decrease in metal as claimed. The original disclosure is completely silent on such a feature.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the above claim feature.
To the extent that applicant intends the formulas, such as equation (1), to be relied upon for support, the Examiner further notes the following:
Applicant explains the manner in which applicant identifies the direction to the increase or decrease in metal in paragraphs [0049]-[0050]. The equations that applicant relies upon being with and, as best understood, require the matrix shown in paragraphs [0036] and [0045]-[0048]. Applicant expressly states in paragraph [0036] “the first component in the subscript denotes the transmitter direction and the second subscript denotes the receiver direction (i.e., Hxy is the magnetic field received at the y-directed receiver due to an x-directed transmitter.)”
As best understood, the only embodiment that relies upon that expressly claimed “rotating platform” as required on lines 7-8 is the embodiment that uses tilted coils, where “only receivers 404 may be tilted but in alternative implementations, either receivers 404 or transmitter 402 or both may be tilted” per paragraph [0051]. As further explained in paragraph [0051], “These antennas may be located on a rotating platform 802.” While paragraph [0052] mentions the rotating platform after the triaxial coil arrangement, as best understood, this recitation is directed towards the tilted coils also mentioned in this paragraph. To that end, while tilted coils can achieve multicomponent measurements, they cannot achieve, as best understood, the nine values found in the matrix of paragraph [0036], and where all of the formulas and math presented by applicant to support the above noted claim feature require this matrix. This is because, as best understood, an untilted coil will only provide a single axis for the transmitted magnetic field, such as axis X, and a tilted transmitter coil will only present two axial components, such as X and Y, because the coil will only be tilted in two dimensions.
Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which a single transmitter coil and two receiver coils will be able to obtain all nine values of the matrix required for all of the subsequent formulas relied upon by applicant to demonstrate possession. As such, as best understood, the explanation presented by applicant to demonstrate support for the above claim feature would be different for the situation in which tilted coils are implemented, but where applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which applicant is able to achieve the above claim feature using the tilted coil embodiment.
Similar to the above, because the formulas shown would not reasonably apply to the tilted coil embodiment required by applicant by reciting the rotating platform, the original disclosure does not reasonably explain the manner in which the direction and distance are inverted, or the manner in which applicant determines an azimuth angle of the direction or increase in metal that minimizes the xy, yx, yz, and zy components of the secondary magnetic fields. In fact, as best understood, the matrices in paragraphs [0043], [0045] would not be present in the tilted coil embodiment, but where this is the only disclosure to support the above claim features. Note that even though applicant has removed the above claim feature, it is by way of this minimization that applicant discloses the identification of direction to an increase or decrease in metal. As such, whether this feature is claimed or not, it must reasonably be explained as it is the mechanism by which applicant performs part of the claim, but where, as explained above, the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which such a feature can be implemented in the constructively elected embodiment. As such, the above claim feature lacks proper written description.
Even if the transmitter and two receiver coils were all tilted, the above phrase requires a transmitter that can generate an X, Y, and Z component, but a tilted coil, as best understood, would only be able to generate two of these components. Applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which tilted coils, as claimed, would be able to include the above components to allow them to be minimized as claimed, for similar reasons as claimed with regard to Claims 1 and 11 above. As such, these phrases lacks proper written description.
As to Claims 3 and 13,
The phrase “the coil antennas comprise tilted coil antennas” on lines 1-2 lacks proper written description. Only to the extent that it is held that Claims 1 and 11 do not require the tilted coil embodiment, these coils do positively recite and require tilted coils, and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons explained the above rejections of Claims 1 and 11.
As to Claims 4 and 14,
The phrases “calculating a change of a phase and an attenuation of the one or more secondary electromagnetic fields between the one or more receivers” in lines 1-3 of Claim 4 and “the information handling system is configured to calculate a change of a phase and an attenuation of the one or more secondary electromagnetic fields between the one or more receivers” in lines 2-4 of Claim 14 lack proper written description and introduce new matter.
Applicant does not originally disclose the use of the above phase and attenuation calculation when the bin embodiment is relied upon. Nowhere in the bin embodiment does applicant explain the use of phase and attenuation as claimed or how such features would be used within the bin embodiment. The original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which these features are used or otherwise relate to the now claimed bin embodiment of Claims 1 and 11. These phrases therefore lacks proper written description and introduces new matter.
As to Claims 5, 6 and 16,
The phrase “removing a primary signal from a secondary signal with at least one or more bucking antennas” on lines 1-2 of Claim 5 and the phrase “the one or more receivers comprise one or more bucking antennas” on lines 1-2 of Claims 6 and 16 introduce new matter.
Applicant has now limited the claims to those using bins, but where the bucking antennas are not reasonably disclosed to be used with the bins embodiment. As best understood, and in light of paragraph [0052], bucking antennas are not disclosed to be used with the bins. As such, this phrase introduces new matter.
As to Claim 15,
The phrase “wherein the information handling system is further configured to remove a primary signal from the secondary signal, wherein the information handling system is capable of communicating with at least one or more bucking antennas” on lines 1-4 introduces new matter.
1) Applicant does not originally disclose the use of the above phase and attenuation calculation when the bin embodiment is relied upon. Nowhere in the bin embodiment does applicant explain the use of phase and attenuation as claimed or how such features would be used within the bin embodiment. The original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which these features are used or otherwise relate to the now claimed bin embodiment of Claims 1 and 11. These phrases therefore lacks proper written description and introduces new matter.
2) The original disclosure does not reasonably disclose that the information handing system transmits any information to the one or more bucking antennas or is otherwise reasonably capable of communicating with any bucking antenna. The bucking antennas are receiving antennas, and thus these antennas at most would provide information, but no information is actually reasonably communicated to them via the information handling system. That stated, the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose that any information is communicated between the information handling system and any bucking receiver. As such, this phrase introduces new matter.
3) Applicant has now limited the claims to those using bins, but where the bucking antennas are not reasonably disclosed to be used with the bins embodiment. As best understood, and in light of paragraph [0052], bucking antennas are not disclosed to be used with the bins. As such, this phrase introduces new matter.
As to Claim 17,
The phrase “the information handling system is further configured to invert the direction and a distance to the azimuthally localized reduction in metal or increase in metal using the one or more electromagnetic fields” on lines 1-4 introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
At issue here is that applicant does not originally disclose the use of inverting any direction or distance to the azimuthally localized reduction in metal or increase in metal using the one or more electromagnetic fields when using the bins and geosignal embodiment. The original disclosure does not reasonably make this connection, nor reasonably explain the manner in which such a feature would reasonably be implemented with the now claims bins and identification of a change in metal based on a comparison now recited in Claim 11. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant has possession or support for this claim feature, in the combination. This phrase therefore introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
As to Claims 10 and 20,
The phrase “the azimuthally localized increase in metal is due to a cable” on lines 1-2 introduces new matter. For the reasons noted above, applicant does not reasonably originally disclose the use of bins or a comparison as claimed to identify an increase in metal in a cable. This phrase is therefore not reasonably supported by the instant application.
As to Claims 2-6, 9, 10, 12-17, 19, 20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s), and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-6, 9-17, 19, and 20 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.
As to Claims 1 and 11,
The phrase “forming at least two or more bins to yield a 360-degree angle tangential to the mandrel, wherein each bin comprises at least one electromagnetic field measurements, and wherein the electromagnetic field measurements for each bin was record at a different time or a different azimuthal location; and identifying a direction to azimuthally located reduction in metal or increase in metal with at least a comparison between the two or more electromagnetic field measurements at the two or more bins” on lines 16 to the end of Claim 1 and the similar feature on lines 15 to the end of Claim 11 is indefinite.
1) At issue here is that it is unclear what a “360-degree angle tangential to the mandrel” is in the context of the disclosure. For example, it is unclear if applicant is merely referring to measurements made about a full 360 degrees or at least during rotation of the mandrel or rotating platform, or if applicant is actually determining a 360 degrees worth of angles. Furthermore, it is also unclear if applicant is referring to a single 360 degree angle, or to 360 angles, as each degree about a circle is an angle. A single angle cannot encompass a circular, and as a 360-degree angle is not disclosed as claimed, it is not understood what specific 360-degree angle is being referenced. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this phrase to mean that applicant is making measurements during rotation of the mandrel.
2) The phrase “each bin comprises at least one electromagnetic field measurements” is indefinite because electromagnetic field measurements were previously recited, and as best understood, those measurements are the same as the ones recited above. However, these measurements are being distinctly recited, but where they are not distinct. The difference and relationship between these measurements are therefore unclear.
3) The phrase “the electromagnetic field measurements for each bin was recorded at a different time or a different azimuthal location” is indefinite.
1) More than one electromagnetic field measurement recitation was previously made, and it is therefore unclear which of these recitations this phrase is intended to reference.
2) The previous recitations are directed towards “one or more electromagnetic field measurements,” and thus the prior phrase only requires one measurement, but can include more. It is therefore unclear if applicant is referencing more than one measurement only, or if the above phrase is intended to include the one measurement as well.
As to Claims 9 and 19,
The phrase “calculating a geosignal, wherein the geosignal is calculated at one or more bins corresponding to one or more azimuth angles” on lines 1-2 of Claim 9, and the phrase “wherein the information handling system is further configured to calculate a geosignal, wherein the geosignal is calculated at one or more bins corresponding to one or more azimuth angles” on lines 1-3 of Claim 19 are indefinite. Claims 1 and 11 now recite two or more bins, a 360-degree angle, and a comparison between measurements. As best understood, these bins are the same as the one or more bins recited in Claims 9 and 19, the azimuth angles are or are at least part of the 360 degree angle of Claims 9 and 19, and the geosignal itself is obtained from any subtraction. As such, each of these elements are not distinct from those recited in Claims 1 and 11, but where they are distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these features and those noted from Claims 1 and 11 are therefore unclear.
As to Claims 10 and 20,
The phrase “the azimuthally localized increase in metal is due to a cable” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. This phrase is indefinite because it is unclear if this phrase is referring to the mere presence of a cable, or that metal in the cable has increased. The original disclosure, as best understood, does not reasonably disclose the situation where the detection is solely based upon the presence of the cable, and instead, again as best understood, is directed towards situations where the actual amount of metal in the cable. That stated, the above claim phrase has more than one reasonable interpretation as claimed, rendering it indefinite as to which interpretation is intended.
As to Claims 2-6, 9, 10, 12-17, 19, 20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s), and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-6, 9-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Guner et al. (Guner) (US 2020/0319362).
As to Claims 1-6, 9-17, 19, and 20,
Guner discloses all claim features as it has the same disclosure as applicant, and it expressly discloses in the combination of Claims 15-17 that the rotating platform and tilted coils can be used to identify a direction to the reduction or increase in metal. Further note that a prior art reference is not required to have proper written description, and instead is only required to be enabled. As such, even if the features of Guner do not provide proper written description for the claim features, Guner reasonably discloses the claim features and is enabled, and is therefore prior art because it has a publication date more than one year from the earliest effective filing date of the instant application, which is the actual filing date of the instant application.
Guner is stated to disclose all claim features because it has the same disclosure as the instant application. As such, any feature claimed in the instant application is reasonably anticipated by Guner.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Khalaj Amineh et al. (Khalaj) (US 2019/0004012).
As to Claims 1 and 11,
Khalaj discloses A method / directionally sensitive tool comprising: disposing an electromagnetic directionally sensitive logging tool (700) into a wellbore (Paragraph [0057]), wherein the electromagnetic logging tool comprises: a mandrel (701) (Figure 7), (Paragraph [0045]); one or more transmitters disposed on the mandrel, where the one or more transmitter axes are not parallel to the mandrel (Paragraph [0045] / “Each coil arm 712-715 is wound with a respective transmit and receive coil 722-725), (Figure 7 / note all coils are at an angle to the mandrel); and one or more receivers disposed on the mandrel, wherein the one or more receivers axes are not parallel to the mandrel (Paragraph [0045] / “Each coil arm 712-715 is wound with a respective transmit and receive coil 722-725), (Figure 7 / note all coils are at an angle to the mandrel); wherein at least one of the one or more transmitters or at least one of the one or more receivers is located on a rotating platform (910) (Paragraph [0054]), (Figure 9); an information handling system configured to: transmit a primary electromagnetic field from one or more transmitters (Paragraph [0048]); record one or more electromagnetic field measurements at the one or more receivers (Paragraph [0049]); form at least two or more bins to yield a 360-degree angle tangential to the mandrel (Paragraphs [0033],[0037][0047],[0049] / note the bins are the library of responses), wherein each bin comprises at least one electromagnetic field measurements (Paragraphs [0033],[0037],[0047],[0049]), and wherein the electromagnetic field measurements for each bin was recorded at a different time or a different azimuthal location (Paragraphs [0033],[0037],[0047],[0049] / note the bins are the data from the measurements as the tool rotates about 360 degrees, and they must be recorded at both different times and different azimuthal locations), and identify a direction to an azimuthally localized reduction in metal or increase in metal with at least a comparison between the two or more electromagnetic field measurements at the two or more bins (Paragraph [0047] / note that because the comparisons are made between along the axial and azimuthal directions and a library of responses, any comparison that identifies a defect must include the identification of the specific axial and azimuthal directions to that defect. This is because the specific response that corresponds to a defect will also correspond to a known axial and azimuthal direction of that particular response).
As to Claims 2 and 12,
Khalaj discloses the one or more transmitters or one or more receivers comprise coil antennas (Figure 7).
As to Claims 3 and 13,
Khalaj discloses the coil antennas comprise tilted coil antennas (Figure 7 / note the coils are located on tilted arms and are therefore tilted coils).
As to Claim 5,
Khalaj discloses removing a primary signal from a secondary signal with at least one or more bucking antennas (Paragraph [0049],[0050] / note some of the coils function as bucking coils to remove field and thus primary signal).
As to Claim 9,
Khalaj discloses calculating a geosignal, wherein the geosignal is calculated at one or more bins corresponding to one or more azimuth angles (Paragraph [0047 / note that the comparisons are reasonably geosignals as they care comparisons between responses, and they correspond to axial and azimuthal directions, which must include angles).
As to Claim 15,
Khalaj discloses the information handing system is further configuration to remove a primary signal from a secondary signal, where in the information handling system is communicably coupled with at least one or more bucking antennas (Paragraph [0049],[0050] / note some of the coils function as bucking coils to remove field and thus primary signal, and note that the information handling system is reasonable capable of using and communicating with bucking coils for the above purpose. Note that the definition of the term “communicably” means capable of being communicated, and thus reciting the information handling system is communicably coupled is the same as reciting that the information handling system is configured to communicate, and is therefore capable of communicating when coupled to the bucking antennas).
As to Claim 19,
Khalaj discloses the information handling system is further configured to calculate a geosignal, wherein the geosignal is calculated at one or more bins corresponding to one or more azimuth angles (Paragraph [0047 / note that the comparisons are reasonably geosignals as they care comparisons between responses, and they correspond to axial and azimuthal directions, which must include angles).
As to Claims 10 and 20,
Khalaj discloses wherein the azimuthally localized increase in metal is due to a cable (Figure 1 / note Claims 1 and 11 only require that the method and information handling system identify a direction to either a reduction in metal or an increase in metal. Because the prior art discloses the identification of the reduction in metal option, it is not required to meet the increase in metal option. That stated, during the normal and ordinary use of the device, any cable with a metallic conductive portion would cause an increase in in metal, and would therefore be detected. Furthermore, the information handling system of Khalaj is also reasonably capable of detecting an increase in metal when evaluating the pipe (see paragraph [0047]), and therefore further discloses this claim feature).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalaj Amineh et al. (Khalaj) (US 2019/0004012) in view of David et al. (David) (US 2018/0074220).
As to Claims 4 and 14,
Khalaj does not disclose calculating a change of a phase and an attenuation of the one or more electromagnetic field measurements between the one or more receivers, the information handling system is configured to calculate a change of a phase and an attenuation of the one or more electromagnetic field measurements between the one or more receivers.
David discloses calculating a change of a phase and an attenuation of the one or more electromagnetic field measurements between the one or more receivers (Figure 7), (Paragraph [0049] / note that by depicting the values for phase and attenuation, they must have been calculated), the information handling system is configured to calculate a change of a phase and an attenuation of the one or more electromagnetic field measurements between the one or more receivers (Figure 7), (Paragraph [0049] / note that by depicting the values for phase and attenuation, they must have been calculated),
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Khalaj to include calculating a change of a phase and an attenuation of the one or more electromagnetic field measurements between the one or more receivers, the information handling system is configured to calculate a change of a phase and an attenuation of the one or more electromagnetic field measurements between the one or more receivers as taught by David in order to advantageously be able to determine the thickness of the tubulars in the wellbore (Paragraph [0004]) to be able to determine whether a defect is present in the tubular (Paragraphs [0001],[0021]).
Claims 6, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalaj Amineh et al. (Khalaj) (US 2019/0004012) in view of Homan et al. (Homan) (US 2003/0184304).
As to Claims 6 and 16,
Khalaj does not disclose the one or more receivers comprise one or more bucking antennas.
Homan discloses the one or more receivers comprise one or more bucking antennas (Paragraph [0076]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Khalaj to include the one or more receivers comprise one or more bucking antennas as taught by Homan in order to advantageously be able to calibrate the logging tool and ensure proper detection at the receiving antennas (Paragraph [0021]).
As to Claim 15,
Khalaj discloses the information handing system is further configuration to remove a primary signal from a secondary signal, where in the information handling system is communicably coupled with at least one or more bucking antennas (Paragraph [0049],[0050] / note some of the coils function as bucking coils to remove field and thus primary signal, and note that the information handling system is reasonable capable of using and communicating with bucking coils for the above purpose. Note that the definition of the term “communicably” means capable of being communicated, and thus reciting the information handling system is communicably coupled is the same as reciting that the information handling system is configured to communicate, and is therefore capable of communicating when coupled to the bucking antennas).
Khalaj is stated to disclose the above claim feature because as best understood, the information handling system is not required to be coupled to the bucking antennas, and instead must only be capable of such coupling and communication. Only to the extent that it is held that the information handling system is required to be coupled to the bucking antennas, Khalaj in view of Donderici would not disclose the information handling system is communicably coupled with at least one or more bucking antennas.
However, Homan discloses the information handling system (85) is communicably coupled with at least one or more bucking antennas. (Paragraph [0076]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Khalaj in view of Donderici to include the information handling system is communicably coupled with at least one or more bucking antennas as taught by Homan in order to advantageously be able to calibrate the logging tool and ensure proper detection at the receiving antennas (Paragraph [0021]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalaj Amineh et al. (Khalaj) (US 2019/0004012) in view of San Martin et al. (San Martin) (US 2019/0055837).
As to Claim 17,
Khalaj not disclose the information handling system is further configured to invert the direction and a distance to the azimuthally localized reduction in metal or increase in metal using the one or more electromagnetic field measurements.
San Martin discloses the information handling system is further configured to invert the direction and a distance to the azimuthally localized reduction in metal or increase in metal using the one or more electromagnetic field measurements (Paragraphs [0034], [0036]), (Figures 6A-6C / note that by using inversion to iteratively identify the location of the cable, San Martin is implicitly inverting the direction and distance to the cable by using the three different locations shown in Figure 6A, all of which have different distances and directions relative to the tool body and receiver antennas).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Khalaj to the information handling system is further configured to invert the direction and a distance to the azimuthally localized reduction in metal or increase in metal using the one or more electromagnetic field measurements as taught by San Martin in order to advantageously the unique position of the detected object or defect (Paragraph [0034] / note the unique position of the cable is being determined by the inversion process).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858