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 .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 18/192,523, is filed on 03/29/2023.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 03/29/2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phrase “obtaining an ultrasonic image log for a borehole, based on the ultrasonic image log” is illogical and should be replaced with “obtaining an ultrasonic image log for a borehole” by deleting “, based on the ultrasonic image log” for clarity. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 and 14-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: As per claims 4-5 and 14-17, claims recite the limitation “measurement” throughout the claim. The word “measurement” has a dual meaning, e.g. (1) action word of “performing a measurement” or (2) “measurement/measured data or signal”. If the latter is intended for the meaning of “measurement”, it is suggested to be replaced with “measurement (or measured or sensed) data (or signal)” or with an appropriate limitation for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The current application includes limitations in claim 20 that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because of the following reasons:
Claim 20 includes limitations/elements that use generic placeholders, “interpretation or simulation engines”, that are coupled with functional language, configured to “obtain” and/or “estimate”, executing on the at least one processor without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The physical structure of interpretation or simulation engines is interpreted as an application of a computer system, i.e. an algorithmic software engine (see specification - The ultrasound image log interpretation engine (210A) and the resistivity image log interpretation engine (210B) may be implemented on a computing device, e.g., as shown in FIG. 8, The mechanical earth model simulation engine (220) may be implemented on a computing system, e.g., as shown in FIG. 8 [0040, Fig. 8], computer 802 [00114-00125, Fig. 8], application 807 is an algorithmic software engine [00122, Fig. 8]).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
“A method for obtaining mechanical earth model (MEM) parameters, (1.A) the method comprising:
obtaining an ultrasonic image log for a borehole; (1.B)
based on the ultrasonic image log, obtaining an estimate of a borehole geometry for an entire circumference of the borehole in an interval of the ultrasonic image log; (1.C)
and estimating the MEM parameters using the estimate of the borehole geometry. (1.D)”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, highlighted limitations/steps (1.A) and (1.C)– (1.D) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or a combination of Mathematical Concept and Mental Process groupings as the limitations include Mathematical Calculations/Algorithms, or show Mathematical Relationship combined with optional Mental evaluations/judgements.
The highlighted limitation (1.A) is treated as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or a combination of Mathematical Concept and Mental Process groupings as the limitation include Mathematical calculations or Mathematical relationship combined with optional mental judgement/evaluation.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A method” and “obtaining an ultrasonic image log for a borehole”;
In Claim 3: “the ultrasonic image log is obtained using a logging while drilling tool”;
In Claim 12: “obtaining a resistivity image log and a mechanical caliper log”;
In Claim 20: “A system”, “an ultrasound image log interpretation engine executing on at least one processor” and “a mechanical earth model simulation engine executing on the at least one processor”:
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A method” is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the method with an abstract ide and even fails to link the method with a particular operation or a field of use.
The limitation/step “obtaining an ultrasonic image log for a borehole” represent a standard data collection step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
As per claim 3: the limitation/step “wherein the ultrasonic image log is obtained using a logging while drilling tool: represents a standard data collection step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
As per claim 12: the limitation/step ““obtaining a resistivity image log and a mechanical caliper log” represents a standard data collection step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
As per claim 20, the additional element in the preamble “A system” is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the system with an abstract idea and even fails to link the system with a particular operation or a field of use. The limitations/elements “an ultrasound image log interpretation engine executing on at least one processor and a mechanical earth model simulation engine executing on the at least one processor” represent computer resources and they are not particular in the art.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Brat, Ameen, Elk, Alba and others in the list of prior art cited below)
Claims 1-20, therefore, are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bratton (US 20070294034 A1), hereinafter ‘Brat’ in view of Ameen (US 20200018159 A1), hereinafter ‘Ameen”.
As per claim 1, Brat discloses
A method for obtaining mechanical earth model (MEM) parameters, (method … generating a … Earth Model [abs], formation parameters, rock strength … parameters [0029, 0033], mechanical earth model ‘MEM’, stress parameters [0031], modeling … parameters [0032, 0035, 0037], a Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) [0043, Fig. 2, 0115, Fig. 8]) the method comprising:
obtaining an ultrasonic image log for a borehole; (An analysis of wellbore images and sonic scanner data can be used to assist in the processing. [0059], sonic scanners, sonic scanning technology, imaging [0081-0083])
and estimating the MEM parameters using the estimate of the borehole geometry. (The Earth Model (EM) … is also preferably configured, stability of a wellbore and the geometry of an induced fracture [0070, Fig. 3], Earth Model ‘EM’… created, geometry [0107-0108, Fig. 6A], MEM … validate … geometrical simulations with the observations … stability of a wellbore and the geometry of a … fracture [0133]).
However, Brat is silent regarding obtaining an estimate of a borehole geometry for an entire circumference of the borehole in an interval of the ultrasonic image log based on the ultrasonic image log.
Ameen discloses estimating borehole geometry for an entire circumference of the borehole using the ultrasonic logging operation (image representing formation rock around the circumference of a wellbore (e.g., from 0° to 360°), along a length of the wellbore (L), ultrasonic logging operation [0038, Figs. 3A-3C], size and shape … of the wellbore, ultrasonic wave, a circumferential coverage of the wellbore wall [0043], circumferential images of the wellbore … along a length of the walls of the wellbore [0047]).
Ameen is in the same art of producing hydrocarbon through subsurface exploration as Brat and is also concerned about modeling rock strength of the borehole (model of rock strength for the well [0068-0071, claim 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Brat in view of Ameen to obtain an estimate of a borehole geometry for an entire circumference of the borehole in an interval of the ultrasonic image log based on the ultrasonic image log with a rationale to help aid designing a good wellbore operation. (see Brat - techniques for designing wellbore operations [0002], 'workflow that optimizes drilling and completion operations in hydrocarbon reservoirs' will characterize or determine a set of 'properties of the reservoir' with enough clarity in
order to design one or more 'drilling and completion operations', such that the 'drilling and completion operations will minimize the damage to the hydrocarbon reservoir, minimize the damage to the completion pathway, maximize the production rate, and maximize the ultimate recovery [0003]).
As per claim 3, Brat and Ameen disclose claim 1 set forth above.
Brat further discloses the ultrasonic image log is obtained using a logging while drilling tool. (Logging-While Drilling Images [0031, 0085], imagers, sonic scanners and calipers [0107], measurement-while-drilling ‘MWD’ [0186])
As per claim 20, Brat discloses
A system for obtaining mechanical earth model (MEM) parameters, (system … for developing earth models for designing drilling and/or completions operations for a wellbore [0002]) the system comprising:
an ultrasound image log interpretation engine executing on at least one processor (a computer system adapted, software adapted [0013, Fig. 1], images that require data process and editing to present the data in a usable form [0048], borehole images may be analyzed [0051], interpret a well log output record [0185, Fig. 10]) and configured to:
obtain an ultrasonic image log for a borehole; (wellbore images and sonic scanner data [0059], sonic scanners, sonic scanning technology, imaging [0081-0083])
and a mechanical earth model simulation engine executing on the at least one processor and configured (a computer system adapted, software adapted [0013, Fig. 1], various simulation [0030]) to:
estimate the MEM parameters using the estimate of the borehole geometry. (The Earth Model (EM) … is also preferably configured, stability of a wellbore and the geometry of an induced fracture [0070, Fig. 3], Earth Model ‘EM’… created, geometry [0107-0108, Fig. 6A], MEM … validate … geometrical simulations with the observations … stability of a wellbore and the geometry of a … fracture [0133]).
However, Brat is silent regarding obtaining an estimate of a borehole geometry for an entire circumference of the borehole in an interval of the ultrasonic image log based on the ultrasonic image log.
Ameen discloses estimating borehole geometry for an entire circumference of the borehole using the ultrasonic logging operation (image representing formation rock around the circumference of a wellbore ‘e.g., from 0° to 360°’, along a length of the wellbore ‘L’, ultrasonic logging operation [0038, Figs. 3A-3C], size and shape … of the wellbore, ultrasonic wave, a circumferential coverage of the wellbore wall [0043], circumferential images of the wellbore … along a length of the walls of the wellbore [0047]).
Ameen is in the same art of producing hydrocarbon through subsurface exploration as Brat and is also concerned about modeling rock strength of the borehole (model of rock strength for the well [0068-0071, claim 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Brat in view of Ameen to obtain an estimate of a borehole geometry for an entire circumference of the borehole in an interval of the ultrasonic image log based on the ultrasonic image log with a rationale to help aid designing a good wellbore operation.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brat and Ameen in view of AlTammar (US 20230003118 A1), hereinafter “AT”.
As per claim 2, Brat and Ameen disclose claim 1 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding determining a mud weight for a drilling operation, using the MEM parameters.
AT discloses determining mud wight for drilling operation using MEM parameters (mechanical earth models frequently used to optimize mud weight during drilling [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of AT to determine a mud weight for a drilling operation, using the MEM parameters with a rationale to help aid designing a good wellbore operation.
Claims 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brat and Ameen in view of Albahrani (Albahrani, Hussain Ibrahim H. "An Automated Drilling Geomechanics Simulator Using Machine-Learning Assisted Elasto-Plastic Finite Element Model." PhD diss., 2020), hereinafter ‘Alba”.
As per claim 4, Brat and Ameen disclose claim 1 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding converting red-green-blue (RGB) values of pixels in the ultrasonic image log to radial measurements.
Alba discloses converting red-green-blue (RGB) values of pixels in the ultrasonic image log to radial measurements (Ultrasonic Based Image Logs Analyzer, interpreting ultrasonic image logs by converting the RGB color number of each pixel to radial measurements [pg. 48 line 1 - pg. 49 par. 2, Fig. 21]).
Alba is in the same image log processing art as the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Alba to estimate borehole geometry by converting red-green-blue (RGB) values of pixels in the ultrasonic image log to radial measurements with a rationale to help aid designing a good wellbore operation.
As per claim 5, Brat, Ameen and Alba disclose claim 4 set forth above.
Alba further discloses using a calibration specific to a logging tool for converting the RGB values of the pixels to the radial measurement (pixels RGB readings are feature scaled using the following formula to yield the needed radii, 𝐶𝐴𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝐶𝐴𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 are minimum and maximum multi-arm mechanical caliper radius readings respectively, which are used for calibration [pg. 52 , eq. 57]).
As per claim 6, Brat and Ameen disclose claim 1 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding an identification of a circumferential extension and a radial extension for the borehole geometry.
Alba discloses an identification of a circumferential extension and a radial extension for the borehole geometry (validation ensures that both the circumferential and radial extensions of wellbore enlargement zones as interpreted from the image log agree with those seen in the caliper log [pg. 154, Fig. 94 Table 11]).
As per claim 7, Brat and Ameen disclose claim 1 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding analyzing a stress regime polygon using the borehole geometry for the MEM parameters estimation.
Alba discloses analyzing a stress regime polygon using the borehole geometry for the MEM parameters estimation ((4.1 Training the integrated model based on field data, based on image log analysis and stress polygon plots [pg. 144 par. 2 – pg. 148 par. 1, Fig. 91]).
As per claim 8, Brat, Ameen and Alba disclose claim 7 set forth above.
Alba further discloses the analyzing of the stress regime polygon provides an in-situ maximum horizontal stress. (The brown lines on the stress polygon to the right in this figure represent contours of equal breakout width and the green lines are the constrained values of the maximum horizontal stress based on the breakout width observed from the image log [pg. 148 par. 1, Fig. 91]).
As per claim 9, Brat and Ameen disclose claim 1 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding generating a 3D finite element drilling geomechanics model using the borehole geometry.
Alba discloses generating a 3D finite element drilling geomechanics model using the borehole geometry. (elastoplastic finite-element model (FEM) [abs], involves an elasto-plastic 3D finite element model (FEM) [pg. 16 par. 2, pg. 23 ], the finite element geomechanics model, any kind of change to the wellbore geometry and shape are now accurately reflected in the FEM mesh [pg. 43 par. 1-2])
As per claim 10, Brat, Ameen and Alba disclose claim 7 set forth above.
Alba further discloses the 3D finite element drilling geomechanics model considers plastic behavior of rock. (an elasto-plastic 3D finite element model (FEM) [pg. 16 par. 2, pg. 23], use of plasticity, in FEM or otherwise, is quite rare in drilling engineering, a geomechanics model that considers the plastic behavior of the rock [pg. 23 par. 1]).
As per claim 11, Brat and Ameen disclose claim 1 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding the MEM parameters are obtained in real-time while drilling.
Alba discloses the MEM parameters are obtained in real-time while drilling. (geomechanics analysis while drilling or in real-time, use of Mechanical Earth Models (MEM) to achieve this application [pg. 4 par. 2], a real-time or a while-drilling implementation of the model [pg. 23 par. 1]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brat and Ameen in view of Elkington (CA 2963540 A1), hereinafter ‘Elk’.
As per claim 12, Brat discloses
A method for obtaining mechanical earth model (MEM) parameters, (method … generating a … Earth Model [abs], formation parameters, rock strength … parameters [0029, 0033], mechanical earth model ‘MEM’, stress parameters [0031], modeling … parameters [0032, 0035, 0037], a Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) [0043, Fig. 2, 0115, Fig. 8]) the method comprising:
obtaining a resistivity image log hole; (resistivity measurements [0077, 0153], properties of the formation 17 surrounding borehole 109, such as formation resistivity (or conductivity) [0186])
and estimating the MEM parameters using the estimate of the borehole geometry. (The Earth Model (EM) … is also preferably configured, stability of a wellbore and the geometry of an induced fracture [0070, Fig. 3], Earth Model ‘EM’… created, geometry [0107-0108, Fig. 6A], MEM … validate … geometrical simulations with the observations … stability of a wellbore and the geometry of a … fracture [0133]).
However, Brat is silent regarding obtaining a mechanical clipper log and obtaining an estimate of a borehole geometry for an entire circumference of the borehole in an interval of the resistivity image log.
Elk discloses obtaining resistivity image log and a mechanical caliper log (log data … image log … downhole, resistivity image log [pg. 1 line 23 - pg. 2 line18], multi-pad micro-resistivity borehole imaging tool … a series of caliper arms, [pg. 5 line 1 – 9]) and obtaining an estimate of a borehole geometry for an entire circumference of the borehole in an interval of the resistivity image log based on the resistivity image log, adjusted using values from the mechanical caliper log (the circumferential portion of the borehole over which the buttons 12 of a pad 11 extend is logged as though there exists a single, continuous, elongate electrode extending over the length in question [pg. 5 line 18-21], log data from … logging tool may be … processed in order to give rise to other … image log, an image log appears as lines and regions of color that represent the shapes and distributions of subterranean features [pg. 2 line 14-25]).
Ameen is in the same art of obtaining and processing image logs using resistivity measurements as Brat.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Brat in view of Elk to obtain a resistivity image log and a mechanical caliper log and estimate a borehole geometry for an entire circumference of the borehole in an interval of the resistivity image log based on the resistivity image log adjusted using values from the mechanical caliper log with a rationale to help aid designing a good wellbore operation.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brat and Elk in view of AlTammar (US 20230003118 A1), hereinafter “AT”.
As per claim 13, Brat and Elk disclose claim 12 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding determining a mud weight for a drilling operation, using the MEM parameters.
AT discloses determining mud wight for drilling operation using MEM parameters (mechanical earth models frequently used to optimize mud weight during drilling [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of AT to determine a mud weight for a drilling operation, using the MEM parameters with a rationale to help aid designing a good wellbore operation.
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brat and Elk in view of Alba.
As per claim 14, Brat and Elk disclose claim 12 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding converting red-green-blue (RGB) values of pixels in the resistivity image log to radial measurements for estimating borehole geometry.
Alba discloses regarding converting red-green-blue (RGB) values of pixels in the resistivity image log to radial measurements for estimating borehole geometry. ((Figure 25 shows the … RGB number of the resistivity image log, interpreted radial measurements in Figure 26, wellbore [pg. 54, Fig. 25-26]).
Alba is in the same image log processing art as the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Alba to estimate borehole geometry by converting red-green-blue (RGB) values of pixels in the ultrasonic image log to radial measurements with a rationale to help aid designing a good wellbore operation.
As per claim 15, Brat, Elk and Alba disclose claim 14 set forth above.
Alba further discloses determining, in the resistivity image log, circumferential angle ranges with lowered image resolution that signify a presence of wellbore enlargements (low resolution regions in the image that signify the presence of wellbore enlargements are also reflected as radial measurements that are higher than the bit radius [pg. 54 Fig. 24 and 26 showing circumferential angle]) for the conversion of the RGB values of the pixels to the radial measurement.
As per claim 16, Brat, Elk and Alba disclose claim 15 set forth above.
Alba further discloses processing image gaps in the resistivity image log, wherein the image gaps are due to spaces between electrical pads of a resistivity image logging tool used for obtaining the resistivity image log (resistivity images normally contain several gaps due to the space between the electrical pads of the resistivity image logging tool [pg. 52 line 2-3], image gaps [pg. 54 Fig. 25]) for the conversion of the RGB values of the pixels to the radial measurement.
As per claim 17, Brat, Elk and Alba disclose claim 15 set forth above.
Alba further discloses, in the circumferential angle ranges with lowered image resolution, incrementing a radius obtained from the resistivity image log, using the values from the mechanical caliper log.(a resistivity image log along with mechanical caliper log readings are shown in Figure 24, low-resolution area signify the presence of wellbore enlargement [pg. 53 par. 2], low resolution regions in the image that signify the presence of wellbore enlargements are also reflected as radial measurements that are higher than the bit radius [pg. 54 Fig. 24 and 26 showing circumferential angle]) for the conversion of the RGB values of the pixels to the radial measurement.
As per claim 18, Brat and Elk disclose claim 12 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding an identification of a circumferential extension and a radial extension for the borehole geometry.
Alba discloses an identification of a circumferential extension and a radial extension for the borehole geometry (validation ensures that both the circumferential and radial extensions of wellbore enlargement zones as interpreted from the image log agree with those seen in the caliper log [pg. 154, Fig. 94 Table 11]).
As per claim 19, Brat and Elk disclose claim 12 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding analyzing a stress regime polygon using the borehole geometry for the MEM parameters estimation.
Alba discloses analyzing a stress regime polygon using the borehole geometry for the MEM parameters estimation ((4.1 Training the integrated model based on field data, based on image log analysis and stress polygon plots [pg. 144 par. 2 – pg. 148 par. 1, Fig. 91]).
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record are provided as additional references relevant to the current claims.
Ramamoorthy (US 20040204857 A1) discloses (describe the formation properties, accurately model the behavior of the reservoir [0067, Fig, 7], estimate petrophysical properties of the formation surrounding the borehole, borehole ultrasonic image logs … provide a measurement of the corresponding property … along the borehole and azimuthally around its circumference, 3D representation of formation properties around the borehole [0068] the shape of the property description is determined by the shape of the primary physical magnitude description [0072, Fig. 7]) (picture of the virtual core 28, equivalent to a borehole, along a length of a … well [0086-0087, Fig. 9-10]).
Prioul (US 20100250214 A1) discloses (acquiring sonic … image data [abs], interpretation of borehole images ‘electrical and ultrasonic’ [0038], the image data may include one of borehole ultrasonic logs [0049], principal stress directions and stress ellipsoid shape factor R [0007, 0043-0044, 0055, 0074], modeling, borehole shape analysis [0105-0112], forward modeling of sonic anisotropy, borehole shape analysis [0105-0112]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS KAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857