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 Nov 25th, 2025, the following has occurred: claims 1, 2, 14, 15, 18, and 19 have been amended; 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) 1-2, 4-6, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 11091999 B2, “Zhang”) in view of Tello et al. ("The Fourier Transform Applied to Cased-hole Ultrasonic Scanner Measurements." SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium. SPWLA, 2008., “Tello”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method comprising: transmitting an acoustic signal into at least part of a conduit string ([column 7, lines 23-32], pulses from transmitter travel through fluid in the tubing, then through the tubing); measuring a return signal from at least part of the conduit string ([column 7, lines 36-41], some of the emitted acoustic pulses will be picked up by the receiver); and forming a depth-resonance amplitude log of the resonance signal with at least one of the one or more amplitudes of the resonance signal. (Fig. 20, [column 14, lines 5-34] illustrates a amplitude depth log at a for a particular depth range within a selectable time window of interest. Suitable time windows may be selected based on the frequency contents and its strength of casing waves)([column 2, lines 41-50], processor is configured to determine frequency spectrum of the recorded waveforms and determine amplitudes of preselected frequencies of interest in which amplitudes are noticeably affected by cement bond quality for a particular casing/tubing configuration)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the selected frequencies of interest correspond to resonance modes as they directly correlate to cement bond quality amplitude sensitivity which is in line with Applicant’s description of resonance mode waveforms in the specification of the claimed invention at [0003])
Zhang may not explicitly teach the return signal comprises a resonance signal and a non-resonance signal; removing the non-resonance signal from the return signal based on a cut-off time, one or more signal processing methods, or both; extracting, via a filter, the resonance signal from the return signal to create a filtered time domain waveform;
Tello teaches the return signal comprises a resonance signal and a non-resonance signal; removing the non-resonance signal from the return signal based on a cut-off time, one or more signal processing methods, or both; extracting, via a filter, the resonance signal from the return signal to create a filtered time domain waveform ([pg. 4, raw waveform is presented in Fig. 3, which illustrates the time waveform having the pipe resonance that follows the internal reflection pulse. the algorithm front mute filters out the internal pulse that corresponds to the transducer component, leaving only the pipe or resonant component of the signal)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the algorithm front mute filtering is a signal processing method);
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of through tubing cement evaluation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Zhang, to include the resonance filtering of Tello with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of removing the transducer component of received signals in order to utilize the resonance signals of pipe to determine the condition and parameters associated with a pipe during cement evaluation [pg. 3-4].
Regarding claim 2, Zhang, as modified in view of Tello teaches the method of claim 1. Tello further teaches extracting the resonance signal comprises decomposing the return signal to form a decomposed waveform, forming the resonance signal by implementing the filter with at least the decomposed waveform, and determining a resonance mode of the return signal([pg. 4, raw waveform is presented in Fig. 3, which illustrates the time waveform having the pipe resonance that follows the internal reflection pulse. the algorithm front mute filters out the internal pulse that corresponds to the transducer component, leaving only the pipe or resonant component of the signal)
Regarding claim 4, Zhang, as modified in view of Tello, teaches the method of claim 2. Zhang further teaches comprising subtracting a baseline signal from the decomposed waveform. ([column 10, lines 48-53], cement bond quality can be determined by subtracting baseline signal from the log)
Regarding claim 5, Zhang, as modified in view of Tello, teaches the method of claim 4. Zhang further teaches wherein the baseline signal is a fully bounded return signal or a free pipe return signal.([column 10, lines 15-18], baseline can be taken from known industry standard baselines based on free pipe calibration)
Regarding claim 6, Zhang, as modified in view of Tello teaches the method of claim 2. Tello further teaches wherein decomposing is based on at least the resonance mode. ([pg. 4, raw waveform is presented in Fig. 3, which illustrates the time waveform having the pipe resonance that follows the internal reflection pulse. the algorithm front mute filters out the internal pulse that corresponds to the transducer component, leaving only the pipe or resonant component of the signal)
Regarding claim 13, Zhang, as modified in view of Tello teaches the method of claim 1. Zhang further teaches further comprising forming a cement bond quality with at least the depth-resonance amplitude log. ([column 10, lines 48-50], cement bond quality can be determined based on the difference between the log at the frequency of interest and the baseline log)
Regarding claim 14, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is a CRM claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, Zhang, as modified in view of Tello teaches the non-transitory storage computer readable medium of claim 18. Zhang further teaches wherein the one or more instructions, that when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to form a decomposed waveform from the return signal and subtract a baseline signal from the decomposed waveform.([column 3, lines 1-10], return signals are recorded and frequencies at which the amplitudes are noticeably affected by the cement quality are compared with baselines to determine indications of cement bond quality)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the extraction of frequencies in which the amplitudes of the return signal are affected is equivalent to decomposing the return waveform)([column 10, lines 48-53], cement bond quality can be determined by subtracting baseline signal from the log)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Tello and Wang (US 20200072036 A1, “Wang”).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang, as modified in view of Tello teaches the method of claim 2. Zhang, as modified in view of Tello may not explicitly teach the filter is a band pass filter and the band pass filter is formed from at least on the resonance mode of the return signal.
Wang teaches wherein the filter is a band pass filter and the band pass filter is formed from at least on the resonance mode of the return signal. ([0027], array preprocessing includes bandpass filtering to suppress tool waves)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the suppression of tool waves is done so based on resonance mode as those are the modes necessary for evaluating the cement bond quality)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of through tubing cement evaluation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Zhang, as modified in view of Tello, to include the bandpass filtering of Wang with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of suppressing tool waves of the return signal [0027].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Tello and Lu (US 20150338378 A1, “Lu”).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang, as modified in view of Tello, teaches the method of claim 2. Zhang, as modified in view of Tello, may not explicitly teach further comprising forming at least one time-frequency window and performing wavelet analysis on the decomposed waveform.
Lu teaches forming at least one time-frequency window and performing wavelet analysis on the decomposed waveform. ([0044], received signals are decomposed into at least one wavelet using the time-frequency decomposition in order to determine parameters associated with each wavelet)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of through tubing cement evaluation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Zhang, as modified in view of Tello, to include the time-frequency decomposition and wavelet analysis of Lu with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of evaluating the condition of the borehole [0044].
Claim(s) 8-9, 11-12, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Tello and Mandal et al. (US 6041861 A, “Mandal”).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang, as modified in view of Tello teaches the method of claim 1. Zhang, as modified in view of Tello may not explicitly teach further comprising forming a time segment from early time arrivals, wherein the early time arrivals comprise resonance and non-resonance signals.
Mandal teaches further comprising forming a time segment from early time arrivals, wherein the early time arrivals comprise resonance and non-resonance signals. ([column 4, lines 46-67]-[column 5, lines 1-5], describes creating a time window early arrivals (T.sub.off) which includes reliable reverberation information as well as initial reflections)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the initial reflections include non-resonance modes that are later delineated by time window (T.sub.win.), which is uncontaminated by the initial reflections and provide only reverberation information corresponding to the cement)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of through tubing cement evaluation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Zhang, as modified in view of Tello, to include the early time arrival window of Mandal with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of ensuring the contamination of the early time window is not part of the casing and cement reverberation measurements comprising the late time arrivals [column 4, lines 46-67]-[column 5, lines 1-5].
Regarding claim 9, Zhang, as modified in view of Tello teaches the method of claim 1. Zhang, as modified in view of Tello may not explicitly teach further comprising forming a time segment from late time arrivals, wherein the late time arrivals comprise only resonance signals.
Mandal teaches further comprising forming a time segment from late time arrivals, wherein the late time arrivals comprise only resonance signals.([column 4, lines 46-67]-[column 5, lines 1-5], T.sub.win. is a time window uncontaminated by initial reflections and includes later arriving reverberation signals occurring in the cement)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of through tubing cement evaluation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Zhang, as modified in view of Tello, to include the late time arrival window of Mandal with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of ensuring the contamination of the first reflection is not part of the casing and cement reverberation measurements [column 4, lines 46-67]-[column 5, lines 1-5].
Regarding claim 11, Zhang, as modified in view of Tello teaches the method of claim 1. Zhang, as modified in view of Tello, may not explicitly teach further comprising determining a cut-off time by at least a length of return waveform, tubing and casing diameters, degree of eccentricity, or transmitter- receiver (TR) offset.
Mandal further teaches further comprising determining a cut-off time by at least a length of return waveform, tubing and casing diameters, degree of eccentricity, or transmitter- receiver (TR) offset.([column 4, lines 46-67]-[column 5, lines 1-5], The duration of T.sub.win should be brief enough so that noise and reverberations occurring in the cement 230 do not make unreliable the received casing reverberation waveforms.)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of through tubing cement evaluation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Zhang, as modified in view of Tello, to include the cut-off time determination of Mandal with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of ensuring the contamination of the first reflection is not part of the casing and cement reverberation measurements [column 4, lines 46-67]-[column 5, lines 1-5].
Regarding claim 12, Zhang, as modified in view of Tello and Mandal teaches the method of claim 11. Mandal further teaches further comprising taking a portion of the return signal after a cut-off time.([column 4, lines 46-67]-[column 5, lines 1-5], T.sub.win. is a time window uncontaminated by initial reflections and includes later arriving reverberation signals occurring in the cement. T.sub.win is juxtaposed to T.sub.off, meaning the time in which T.sub.win. is taken is after a cutoff time at the end of T.sub.off)
Regarding claim 16, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 12 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang, as modified in view of Tello teaches the non-transitory storage computer readable medium of claim 18. Zhang, as modified in view of Tello may not explicitly teach the one or more instructions, that when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to remove the non-resonance after a cut-off time.
Mandal teaches the one or more instructions, that when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to remove the non-resonance after a cut-off time([column 4, lines 46-67]-[column 5, lines 1-5], T.sub.win. is a time window uncontaminated by initial reflections and includes later arriving reverberation signals occurring in the cement. T.sub.win is juxtaposed to T.sub.off, meaning the time in which T.sub.win. is taken is after a cutoff time at the end of T.sub.off).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of through tubing cement evaluation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the crm of Zhang, as modified in view of Tello, to include the cut-off time determination of Mandal with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of ensuring the contamination of the first reflection is not part of the casing and cement reverberation measurements [column 4, lines 46-67]-[column 5, lines 1-5].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Tello and Mandal (US 20150085611 A1, “Mandal 2”).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang, as modified in view of Tello teaches the method of claim 1. Zhang, as modified in view of Tello may not explicitly teach wherein one or more amplitudes are computed by root- mean squared amplitude, peak-to-peak amplitude or from wavelet convolution or Hilbert transform.
Mandal 2 teaches wherein one or more amplitudes are computed by root- mean squared amplitude, peak-to-peak amplitude or from wavelet convolution or Hilbert transform. ([0024] amplitudes are calculated by the root mean square of one or more cycles)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of through tubing cement evaluation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Zhang, as modified in view of Tello, to include the root mean squared amplitude measurement of Mandal 2 with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of determining the properties of the materials behind the casing such as the cement [0024].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed November 25th, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhang, as modified in view of Tello, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
On Pg. 3 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that claims 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are in condition for allowance due to their respective dependence upon independent claims 1, 14, and 18. As noted in response to arguments with respect to claims 1, 14, and 18, above, the rejections are maintained under new grounds of rejection as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, therefore so are the rejections of claims 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20.
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:
Mandal (U.S. Patent Application No. 20200116007) which discloses an acoustic method and apparatus for cement bond evaluation through tubing
Bose et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 20180149019) which discloses a method for analyzing cement integrity in casing strings using machine learning
Frisch (U.S. Patent Application No. 20170108607) which discloses a method for peak analysis of ultrasonic waveforms for cement bond logging
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 on 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