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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendments filed November 6th, 2025, the following has occurred: claims 1, 8, 13, and 17 have been amended; claim 20 is new; claims 1-20 remain pending in this application
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 10, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donderici (US 20160327675 A1, “Donderici”) in view of Zheng et al. (US 20190136650 A1, “Zheng”).
Regarding claim 1, Donderici discloses a method of locating devices mounted external to a tubular, the method comprising: deploying an imaging tool having an acoustic sensor into the tubular([0037], conformable sensor provides information regarding areas in contact with a pipe that is in contact with the conformable sensor, as well information regarding elements remote from the conformable sensor such as a second pipe concentric with and outside the first pipe); creating acoustic images using the acoustic sensor from acoustic reflections from the tubular and portions of the device contacting the tubular([0043], conformable and ultrasonic sensor responses provide increased resolution for downhole elements such as outer pipes in a concentric pipe environment); processing the acoustic images with a first computer model to locate an inner surface of the tubular([0046], inversion block may receive a model of a downhole environment to identify physical parameters of pipes in the downhole environment)(Implicit, [0049], physical parameters from a innermost pipe is generated from the input signal including standoff distance and thickness);
Donderici may not explicitly teach selecting data of the acoustic images that are beyond the located inner surface; processing the selected data with a second computer model to determine locations of the devices; and outputting the location of the devices.
Zheng teaches selecting data of the acoustic images that are beyond the located inner surface; processing the selected data with a second computer model to determine locations of the devices([0031] processor may use machine learning to determine the location of an existing feature on a tubular such as a marker attached to the tubular); and outputting the location of the devices (Implicit, [0058], computing system includes output devices such as displays)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that outputting the located devices includes displaying the resulting data on a screen)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of downhole imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Donderici, to include the second computer model of Zheng with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of identifying features associated with a respective tubular [0031].
Regarding claim 2, Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng, teaches the method of claim 1. Donderici further teaches wherein the selected data correspond to areas located from the acoustic sensor at distances greater than the located inner surface of the tubular. (Implicit, [0049], physical parameters from a innermost pipe is generated from the input signal including standoff distance and thickness, this data can be used to then calculate physical and electrical parameters of pipes 2 and 3 in a concentric pipe downhole environment)
Regarding claim 3, Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng, teaches the method of claim 1. Donderici further teaches wherein the selected data correspond to areas or volumes located from the acoustic sensor at distances greater than the located inner surface of the tubular plus a wall thickness of the tubular. (Implicit, [0049], physical parameters from a innermost pipe is generated from the input signal including standoff distance and thickness, this data can be used to then calculate physical and electrical parameters of pipes 2 and 3 in a concentric pipe downhole environment)
Regarding claim 5, Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng teaches the method of claim 1. Donderici further teaches wherein the first computer model partitions the acoustic images into internal and external areas with respect to the tubular, then locates the inner surface at pixels in the acoustic images between the internal and external areas(Implicit, [0049], physical parameters from a innermost pipe is generated from the input signal including standoff distance and thickness, this data can be used to then calculate physical and electrical parameters of pipes 2 and 3 in a concentric pipe downhole environment).
Regarding claim 7, Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng, teaches the method of claim 1. Zheng further teaches wherein the second computer model is a second machine learning model ([0031] processor may use machine learning to determine the location of an existing feature on a tubular such as a marker attached to the tubular).
Regarding claim 10, Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng teaches the method of claim 1. Donderici further teaches wherein the acoustic images extend longitudinally along the tubular, circumferentially around the tubular, and radially into the tubular([0058] conformable sensor array is a radial array extending around the tool)([0044] input signals from conformable sensors reflects different depths or measurements).
Regarding claim 13, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donderici in view of Zheng and Bose et al. (US 20180149019 A1, “Bose”).
Regarding claim 4, Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng, teaches the method of claim 1. Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng, may not explicitly teach wherein the first computer model is a first machine learning model.
Bose teaches wherein the first computer model is a first machine learning model([0070], number of sonic measurements and attributes are put into a machine learning processes that makes a categorical diagnosis of a first annulus and a second annulus behind an additional casing string).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of downhole imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng to include the machine learning model of Bose with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of creating a categorical diagnosis of areas between the tubulars [0070].
Regarding claim 15, Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng teaches the computer system of claim 13. Donderici teaches partition[ing] the acoustic images into internal and external areas with respect to the tubular, then locates the inner surface at pixels in the acoustic images between the internal and external areas(Implicit, [0049], physical parameters from a innermost pipe is generated from the input signal including standoff distance and thickness, this data can be used to then calculate physical and electrical parameters of pipes 2 and 3 in a concentric pipe downhole environment).
Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng may not explicitly teach wherein the first computer model is a machine learning model.
Bose teaches wherein the first computer model is a first machine learning model([0070], number of sonic measurements and attributes are put into a machine learning processes that makes a categorical diagnosis of a first annulus and a second annulus behind an additional casing string).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of downhole imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng to include the machine learning model of Bose with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of creating a categorical diagnosis of areas between the tubulars [0070].
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donderici in view of Zheng and Abolmaesumi et al. (WO 2020041881 A1, “Abolmaesumi”).
Regarding claim 6, Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng, teaches the method of claim 1. Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng may not explicitly teach wherein the first computer model comprises one of: a U- Net architecture, Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and spatio-temporal attention model.
Abolmaesumi teaches wherein the first computer model comprises one of: a U- Net architecture, Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and spatio-temporal attention model ([attached machine translation, pg. 21] second feature extraction unit may include a plurality of recurrent neural networks with a long-short term memory module).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of downhole imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng to include the recurrent neural network of Abolmeasumi with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of extracting feature data associated with the measured ultrasonic data[attached machine translation, pg. 21].
Regarding claim 16, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 6 and is therefore indicated as containing allowable subject matter for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donderici in view of Zheng and Zhu et al. (US 20210247537 A1, “Zhu”).
Regarding claim 8, Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng teaches the method of claim 1. Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng may not explicitly teach wherein the second computer model is a neural network.
Zhu teaches wherein the second computer model is a neural network ([0050], ultrasonic data prediction process may generate ultrasonic data associated with an outer casing based on a nonlinear regression model with a neural network).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of downhole imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng to include the regression network of Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of analyzing data associated with areas beyond a first tubular[0050].
Regarding claim 9, Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng teaches the method of claim 1. Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng may not explicitly teach wherein the second computer model comprises a regression network to determine and output an azimuthal location of the devices with respect to the tubular.
Zhu teaches wherein the second computer model comprises a regression network to determine and output an azimuthal location of the devices with respect to the tubular([0037], ultrasonic data prediction process may restore some of the azimuthal resolution for better assurance using sonic data)([0050], ultrasonic data prediction process may generate ultrasonic data associated with an outer casing based on a nonlinear regression model with a neural network)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of downhole imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng to include the regression network of Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving azimuthal resolution of generated ultrasonic data[0037].
Regarding claim 17, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 8 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 9 and is therefore indicated as containing allowable subject matter for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donderici in view of Zheng and Malik et al. (US 20180266243 A1, “Malik”).
Regarding claim 11, Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng teaches the method of claim 1. Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng, may not explicitly teach wherein the acoustic transducer is a radial ultrasonic phased array, and the acoustic images comprises signals for plural scan lines over time, radially outwards from the ultrasonic phased array.
Malik teaches wherein the acoustic transducer is a radial ultrasonic phased array, and the acoustic images comprises signals for plural scan lines over time, radially outwards from the ultrasonic phased array([0038] phased array ultrasound system may be ring shaped or a radial transducer)([0043] phased array ultrasound imaging system obtains images of the wellbore as the device is moved through the wellbore).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of downhole imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng to include the radial ultrasonic phased array of Malik with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of obtaining radially collected ultrasound images within a wellbore [0043].
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donderici in view of Zheng and Almaguer (US 8201625 B2, “Almaguer”).
Regarding claim 12, Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng teaches the method of claim 1. Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng, may not explicitly teach further comprising calculating an intensity value along scan lines within the selected data, which intensity value represent at least one of: maximum intensity, average intensity, standard deviation of intensity, and radius of center of intensity.
Almaguer teaches further comprising calculating an intensity value along scan lines within the selected data, which intensity value represent at least one of: maximum intensity, average intensity, standard deviation of intensity, and radius of center of intensity.([column 4, lines 13-15], sweeping radial image may include intensity versus radial degrees rotated)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that in the event the combination of intensity as a function of degrees rotated implicitly would include the average value)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of downhole imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng to include the intensity measurements of Almaguer with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of using the obtained intensity values to generate cross-sectional images of the condition of pipes within the wellbore [column 4, lines 7-10].
Regarding claim 19, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 12 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donderici in view of Zheng and Brady et al. (US 20170285219 A1, “Brady”).
Regarding claim 20, Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng teaches the computer system of claim 13. Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng may not explicitly teach the devices mounted externally to the tubular include at least one clamp.
Brady teaches the devices mounted externally to the tubular include at least one clamp ([0034]-[0036], components containing tracer material labelled component and/or distance between labelled elements within a completion system may be used to measure the depth of the component. Components may be used to determine location of clamps. In some embodiments reference markers may be identified by a change in casing inner diameter detectible by ultrasonic calipers)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of downhole imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng to include the clamp localization of Brady with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of using the measuring the location (depth) of components within the wellbore [0034].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 6th, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 1-6 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Donderici, as modified in view of Zheng fails to teach the limitations of claim 1 for the following reasons:
Zheng fails to teach locating devices mounted externally to the tubular.
Zheng’s imaging device is located at the top of the drilling rig and would be unable to detect devices attached to the tubular in the wellbore.
With respect to (1), the examiner respectfully disagrees that Zheng fails to teach the detecting of devices mounted externally to the tubular. Zheng explicitly recites the detection of markers that may be formed on or attached to the tubing at [0031]. While this citation of Zheng may include the possibility that the marker may be formed on the tubular (for example shoulder thread or edge of a tubular, Zheng indicates that such features are “existing features”, rather than the additional markers that may be attached to the tubular. This indicates that Zheng contemplates the locating of externally mounted markers on the tubular and thus reads upon the claim limitation.
With respect to (2), inasmuch as the examiner understands what Applicant is arguing, Zheng is not relied upon to teach the disposition of the imaging device, rather Donderici is. Zheng is merely relied upon to teach the location of devices outside the inner surface of a tubular. Zheng addresses these limitations at [0031], as noted in the response to (1), above. Therefore the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Donderici in view of Zheng is maintained.
On pg. 6-9 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that due to the alleged allowability of the independent claims, claims 4, 6, 8-9, 11-12, and 15-19 are therefore in condition for allowance. As noted in the response to arguments with respect to claim 1, the rejection is maintained and therefore so are the rejections of claims 4, 6, 8-9, 11-12, and 15-19.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Paz (US 20010029989 A1, “Paz”) which discloses a pipeline identification and positioning system
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 CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645