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 July 17th, 2026, the following has occurred: claims 1, 3, 14, and 18 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) 1-6 and 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. (US 20220381133 A1, “Ge”) in view of Zhang et al. (US 11091999 B2, “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Ge discloses a method comprising:
transmitting an acoustic signal into at least part of a conduit string ([0040], one or more transmitters emit a shaped signal that interacts with pipe string, casing, and a boundary between casing and material);
measuring a return signal from at least part of the conduit string ([0040], resulted signal 408 may be collected, recorded, measured, and/or stored by one or more receivers 102. A receiver 102 may be azimuthal receivers, unipole receivers, monopole receiver, dipole receiver or receiver for higher order multipoles);
the return signal comprises a resonance signal and a non-resonance signal(Implicit, [0041], a cut-off time is determined to remove early time arrivals 502 which has energy of modes other than the resonance modes)(the return signal comprising modes other than the resonance modes implicitly means the return signal has a resonance and non-resonance signal);
removing the non-resonance signal from the return signal based on a cut-off time
identifying, based on modal analysis of the return signal, a resonance mode in the return signal, the resonance mode being a cement-sensitive resonance mode, wherein the cement-sensitive resonance mode is based at least on a configuration of a borehole(Fig. 6, [0039], Beside using time domain simulation result to determine cement-sensitive modes, the sensitivity to cement bonding may also be determined by performing a modal analysis to get the mode shape of each resonance modes).
based at least on the cement-sensitive resonance mode, extracting, via a filter, the resonance signal from the return signal to create a filtered time domain waveform([0044], For example, a time-frequency analysis may be performed on the time-domain signal. The amplitude of a specific mode over time may be plotted to measure the decay. Alternatively, the method to compute decay of the identified mode using amplitude of the band-pass filtered signal may be used. Raw signal may be band-pass filtered to filter out a single mode which is sensitive to cement bonding.);
Ge fails to teach
and forming, based on the filtered time domain waveform, a depth-resonance amplitude log of the resonance signal with at least one of the one or more amplitudes of the resonance signal.
Zhang teaches
and forming, based on the filtered time domain waveform, 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 an 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)(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])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Ge, to include the teachings of Zhang, in order to yield a downhole acoustic resonance mode determination method that is capable generating amplitude depth logs in order to compare them with logs of known cement bond quality, so that quick comparisons may be made regarding the quality of the cement bond of the current wellbore may be quickly and efficiently made throughout the entire depth. Making such a modification amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (C).
Regarding claim 2, Ge, as modified in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1. Ge further teaches
extracting the resonance signal comprises decomposing the return signal to form a decomposed waveform, and forming the resonance signal by implementing the filter with at least the decomposed waveform([0044], alternatively, the method to compute decay of the identified mode using amplitude of the band-pass filtered signal may be used. This may be performed by taking the raw signal of result signal and apply a band pass filter on the raw signal (or multipole decomposed signal) to filter out a single mode which is sensitive to cement bonding.)
Regarding claim 3, Ge, as modified in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 2. Ge further teaches
the filter is a band pass filter and the band pass filter is formed from at least on the resonance mode associated with the return signal([0044], alternatively, the method to compute decay of the identified mode using amplitude of the band-pass filtered signal may be used. This may be performed by taking the raw signal of result signal and apply a band pass filter on the raw signal (or multipole decomposed signal) to filter out a single mode which is sensitive to cement bonding.).
Regarding claim 4, Ge, as modified in view of Zhang 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, Ge, as modified in view of Zhang 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, Ge, as modified in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 2. Ge further teaches
wherein decomposing is based on at least the resonance mode. ([0044], alternatively, the method to compute decay of the identified mode using amplitude of the band-pass filtered signal may be used. This may be performed by taking the raw signal of result signal and apply a band pass filter on the raw signal (or multipole decomposed signal) to filter out a single mode which is sensitive to cement bonding.)
Regarding claim 8, Ge, as modified in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1. Ge further teaches
further comprising forming a time segment from early time arrivals, wherein the early time arrivals comprise resonance and non-resonance signals ([0041], cut-off time is determined to remove early arrivals which have energy of modes other than the resonance modes).
Regarding claim 9, Ge, as modified in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1. Ge further teaches
further comprising forming a time segment from late time arrivals, wherein the late time arrivals comprise only resonance signals ([0037] in late time arrivals (504), result signal is observed to have fixed frequency components and with decreasing amplitude over time. This is the borehole resonance mode).
Regarding claim 10, Ge, as modified in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1. Ge further teaches
wherein one or more amplitudes are computed by
Regarding claim 11, Ge, as modified in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1. Ge 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 ([0041], a cut-off time is determined to remove early time arrivals 502 which has energy of modes other than the resonance modes. The time may be determined by the length of source waveform, diameters of pipe string and/or casing, degree of eccentricity and transmitter-receiver (TR) offset).
Regarding claim 12, Ge, as modified in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 11. Ge further teaches
further comprising taking a portion of the return signal after a cut-off time. (Implicit, [0041], a cut-off time is determined to remove early time arrivals 502 which has energy of modes other than the resonance modes. The time may be determined by the length of source waveform, diameters of pipe string and/or casing, degree of eccentricity and transmitter-receiver (TR) offset. The remaining waveform may then be decomposed)(decomposing the remaining waveform after cutting-off early arrivals is equivalent to taking a portion of the return signal after a cut-off time)
Regarding claim 13, Ge, as modified in view of Zhang 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 16, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 12 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 19, Ge, as modified in view of Zhang teaches the non-transitory storage computer readable medium of claim 18. Ge further 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([0041], a cut-off time is determined to remove early time arrivals 502 which has energy of modes other than the resonance modes).
Regarding claim 20, Ge, as modified in view of Zhang 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)(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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge, in view of Zhang, and Lu (US 20150338378 A1, “Lu”).
Regarding claim 7, Ge, as modified in view of Zhang, teaches the method of claim 2. Ge, as modified in view of Zhang fails to 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 obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Ge, as modified in view of the teachings of Zhang, to further include the teachings of Lu, in order to yield a downhole acoustic resonance mode determination method that is able to decompose the return signal into discrete wavelets that can be further utilized to determine other parameters of interest regarding the borehole such as arrival time, frequency, amplitude, which then provide valuable information regarding the condition of the casing and the cement casing bonding impedance. Making such a modification amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed March 11th, 2026, 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 Ge, as modified in view of Zhang. Therefore the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-6, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are maintained under new grounds, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8 of Applicant’s Remarks, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 3 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 Ge, as modified in view of Zhang. Therefore the rejections of claim 3 is maintained under new grounds, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
On pg. 8-10 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that due to the alleged allowability of claims 1, 14, and 18, that dependent claims 3 and 7-12, 16, and 19 are therefore in condition for allowance. As noted in the response to arguments related to claims 1, 14, and 19, above, the claims are rejected under new grounds, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore the rejections of claims 7-12, 16, and 19 are similarly maintained.
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
Prosecution Insights