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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 12/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 8 and the objection of claim 16. Accordingly, the rejection and objection have been withdrawn.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, 17 and all subsequent dependent claims have been considered but are moot in view of the references cited in the most current rejection.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (US 20190145241 A1) in view of Merciu (US 20170350231 A1) and Birchak (US 5763773 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yao teaches a method for determining pipe eccentricity in a downhole environment, the method comprising: providing a downhole tool (10, 110) comprising one or more first transducers (40) to provide first shear horizontal waves and comprising one or more second transducers to provide first Lamb waves (produce a single waveform, such as shear horizontal waves (SH) or Lamb waves). (Abstract, Paragraphs 3, 33, 36-37, 24, 44, Fig.1A)
Yao also teaches running the downhole tool (10, 110) into the casing (130) to the downhole environment (50, 140). (Paragraph 36, Figs.1A-1B)
Yao also teaches receiving, using the one or more first transducers (40), second shear horizontal waves that are associated with the first shear horizontal waves and that are returned from the downhole environment and receiving, using the one or more second transducers, second Lamb waves that are associated with the first Lamb waves and that are returned from the downhole environment. (Paragraphs 24, 32-33, 36, 44, 50, Figs.1A-1B)
Yao also teaches determining the pipe eccentricity of the casing based in part on the one or more of the acoustic waves. (Paragraphs 5, 31, Claim 14)
Yao does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more first transducers are disposed on the downhole tool in a first normal plane with respect to a longitudinal axis of a casing, and the one or more second transducers are disposed on the downhole tool in a second normal plane with respect to the longitudinal axis of the casing and determining, using a processor executing instructions from a memory, shear horizontal third-interface echoes (TIEs) or Lamb TIEs from the second shear horizontal waves or the second Lamb waves and determining the pipe eccentricity of the casing based in part on the one or more of the shear horizontal TIEs or the Lamb TIEs.
Merciu teaches determining, using a processor executing instructions from a memory, shear horizontal third-interface echoes (TIEs) or Lamb TIEs from the second shear horizontal waves or the second Lamb waves and determining the eccentricity of the casing based in part on the one or more of the shear horizontal TIEs or the Lamb TIEs. (Paragraphs 17, 29, 42, Claims 1, 5, 7, Fig.1)
Birchak teaches wherein the one or more first transducers (30) are disposed on the downhole tool (10) in a first normal plane with respect to a longitudinal axis of a casing (24), and the one or more second transducers (40) are disposed on the downhole tool (10) in a second normal plane with respect to the longitudinal axis of the casing (24). (Col.6, lines 13-14, Claim 1, Figs.1, 3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yao to incorporate determining, using a processor executing instructions from a memory, shear horizontal third-interface echoes (TIEs) or Lamb TIEs from the second shear horizontal waves or the second Lamb waves and determining the eccentricity of the casing based in part on the one or more of the shear horizontal TIEs or the Lamb TIEs as taught by Merciu in order to evaluate material conditions in the annulus of the pipe layers and further modify Yao to incorporate wherein the one or more first transducers are disposed on the downhole tool in a first normal plane with respect to a longitudinal axis of a casing, and the one or more second transducers are disposed on the downhole tool in a second normal plane with respect to the longitudinal axis of the casing as taught by Birchak in order to avoid undesirable attenuation attributable to the mud.
Regarding claim 3, Yao teaches enabling the one or more first transducers and the one or more second transducers to be stationary with respect to circumferential positions of the casing for measurements associated with the pipe eccentricity at individual depths in the downhole environment. (Paragraphs 33, Figs.1A-1B)
Regarding claim 4, Yao teaches the second shear horizontal waves and the second Lamb waves, the method further comprising: determining the pipe eccentricity of the casing with respect to an outer casing or a formation of the downhole environment, based additionally on the acoustic waves. (Paragraphs 5, 31, 24, 32-33, 36, 44, 50, Figs.1A-1B, Claim 14)
Yao does not explicitly teach wherein the second shear horizontal waves and the second Lamb waves comprise guided waves and determining the pipe eccentricity of the casing with respect to an outer casing or a formation of the downhole environment, based additionally on the guided acoustic waves.
Merciu teaches wherein the second shear horizontal waves and the second Lamb waves comprise guided waves and determining the pipe eccentricity of the casing with respect to an outer casing (second pipe layer) or a formation of the downhole environment, based additionally on the guided acoustic waves. (Paragraphs 78, 87, 89, 41-42, 38, Claim 5, Figs.3a, 3c)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yao to incorporate wherein the second shear horizontal waves and the second Lamb waves comprise guided waves and determining the pipe eccentricity of the casing with respect to an outer casing or a formation of the downhole environment, based additionally on the guided acoustic waves in order to evaluate material conditions in the annulus of the pipe layers.
Regarding claim 5, Yao teaches determining pipe eccentricity of the casing. (Paragraphs 5, 31, Claim 14)
Yao does not explicitly teach wherein the pipe eccentricity of the casing is with respect to an outer casing or a formation of the downhole environment, based at least in part on the guided waves.
Merciu teaches wherein the pipe eccentricity of the casing is with respect to an outer casing (second pipe layer) or a formation of the downhole environment, based at least in part on the guided waves. (Paragraph 42, 17, 35, 38, Claim 1, 5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yao to incorporate wherein the pipe eccentricity of the casing is with respect to an outer casing or a formation of the downhole environment, based at least in part on the guided waves in order to evaluate material conditions in the annulus outside the pipe layers.
Regarding claim 6, Yao teaches the second shear horizontal waves and the second Lamb waves. (Paragraphs 5, 31, 24, 32-33, 36, 44, 50, Figs.1A-1B, Claim 14)
Yao does not explicitly teach wherein the second shear horizontal waves and the second Lamb waves are associated with reflections from a third interface and wherein the guided waves are from leaked waves associated with the first Lamb waves that leak at least around a partial circumference of the downhole tool without interfacing with the casing.
Merciu teaches wherein the second shear horizontal waves and the second Lamb waves are associated with reflections from a third interface and wherein the guided waves are from leaked waves associated with the first Lamb waves that leak at least around a partial circumference of the downhole tool without interfacing with the casing. (Paragraphs 17, 89-90, Figs.3a-3d)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yao to incorporate wherein the second shear horizontal waves and the second Lamb waves are associated with reflections from a third interface and wherein the guided waves are from leaked waves associated with the first Lamb waves that leak at least around a partial circumference of the downhole tool without interfacing with the casing in order to evaluate material conditions in the annulus of the pipe layers.
Regarding claim 7, Yao teaches enabling the one or more first transducers and the one or more second transducers to receive the second shear horizontal waves and the second Lamb waves from different circumferential locations of the downhole environment. (Paragraphs 24, 32-33)
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claim 1. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 8 and 17, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 8 and 17 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 3. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 10, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 3.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claim 4. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 11 and 18, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 11 and 18 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 4.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claim 5. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 12 and 19, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 12 and 19 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 5.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claim 6. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 13 and 20, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 13 and 20 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 7. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 14, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Yao does not explicitly teach wherein one or more of the shear horizontal TIEs or the Lamb TIEs are with respect to a third interface associated with the casing or with a further barrier from the casing within the downhole environment.
Merciu teaches wherein one or more of the shear horizontal TIEs or the Lamb TIEs are with respect to a third interface associated with the casing or with a further barrier from the casing within the downhole environment. (Paragraphs 51, 38, 87, 17 Claims 1, 7-8, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Yao to incorporate wherein one or more of the shear horizontal TIEs or the Lamb TIEs are with respect to a third interface associated with the casing or with a further barrier from the casing within the downhole environment in order to evaluate material conditions in the annulus of the pipe layers.
Regarding claim 16, Yao teaches wherein the one or more first transducers and the one or more second transducers first are electromagnetic acoustic transducers (EMAT) transducers with different measurement features to receive the second shear horizontal waves or the second Lamb waves. (Paragraphs 23-24, 32, Figs.1A-1B)
Conclusion
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 ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645