DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The claim elements do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new rejection including Viggen et al.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 10, the term "and" appears to be missing after the word “position”.
Appropriate correction is required.
References
D1: WO2016028498 ZEROUG et al. February 25, 2016
D2: US20150136516 Chang et al. May 21, 2015
D3: WO2021086451 Chang et al. May 6, 2021
D4: US20200256185 Liu et al. August 13, 2020
D5: Viggen et al., Analysis of outer-casing echoes in simulations of ultrasonic
pulse-echo through-tubing logging, December 2015
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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, 2, 11-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in combination with D2 and D5.
With regards to claims 1 and 12 the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a housing (102) including a longitudinal axis (¶ 0029); a transmitter (120) being positioned within the housing, the transmitter being configured to operate in sonic (¶ 0003) and ultrasonic (Abstract) frequencies and being angled (¶ 0031) with respect to the longitudinal axis; a plurality of receivers (FIG. 2: 130a-130h) being positioned within the housing, each of the plurality of receivers being spaced from the transmitter (¶ 0029); one or more processors (140) to: receive at least one of sonic and ultrasonic data from the plurality of receivers; and determine tubing or cement angular information (¶¶ 0026 & 0052) based on the at least one of the sonic and ultrasonic data received from the plurality of receiver. The difference between the D1 reference and claims 1 and 12 is that the claims recite the receivers are isolated from the transmitters and determining tubing positions. The D2 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize acoustic isolators placed between acoustic transmitters and receivers (D2: claim 21). It would have been obvious to modify the D1 reference to utilize acoustic isolators as motivated by the D2 reference to enable the D1 system to reduce acoustic transmissions which could affect the acoustical measurements of the receivers. The D5 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize tubing position (eccentering) measurements with pitch-catch measuring devices (D5: page 6, right column, lines 47-57; Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to modify the D1 reference to utilize tubing position measurements as motivated by the D5 reference to enable the D1 system to utilize a complementing logging technique.
With regards to claims 2 and 17, the D1 reference discloses both the transmitting and receiving transducers may be controllably angled to desired angles (D1: ¶ 0031).
With regards to claim 11, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a plurality of receivers (D1: ¶ 0049).
With regards to claim 13, the D2: reference discloses the utilization of a plurality of gaps (D2: ¶ 0019, FIG. 2B).
With regards to claim 14, the D2: reference discloses the utilization of a plurality of isolators (D2: ¶ 0008).
With regards to claims 18-20, the D1 reference discloses employing a pitch-catch configuration (D1: ¶ 0028).
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Claims 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in combination with D2 and D5 as applied to claims 1, 2, 11-14, and 18-20 above, and further in combination with D3.
With regards to claims 3 and 8, the D3 reference discloses the utilization of downhole sonic tools with unipole transducers (D3: ¶ 0024) with a source bandwidth spanning from about 5 kHz to 35 kHz (D3: ¶ 0019). It would have been obvious to modify the previous combination to obtain more desirable transmitted acoustic waves.
With regards to claims 4 and 5, the D3 reference discloses the utilization of PZT transmitters (D3: ¶0029) and PZT disks (D3: ¶¶ 0030, 0055). It would have been obvious to modify the previous combination to obtain more desirable transmitted acoustic waves.
With regards to claim 6, the D3 reference discloses the utilization of an acoustic reflector (D3: FIG. 7: 702) that wraps around a portion of the transmitter (D3: 12), the acoustic reflector converts a monopole into a directional (D3: 704) transmitter. It would have been obvious to modify the previous combination to obtain more desirable transmitted acoustic waves.
With regards to claim 7, the D3 reference discloses the utilization of an acoustic window (D3: 704) that is open to permit a predetermined acoustic radiating direction. It would have been obvious to modify the previous combination to obtain more desirable transmitted acoustic waves.
With regards to claim 9, the D3 reference discloses the utilization of a dipole transducer (D3: ¶ 0024). It would have been obvious to modify the previous combination to obtain more desirable transmitted acoustic waves.
With regards to claim 10, the D3 reference discloses the utilization of a mass blocks (D3: ¶¶ 0027, 0030). It would have been obvious to modify the previous combination to obtain more desirable transmitted acoustic waves.
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in combination with D2 and D5 as applied to claims 1, 2, 11-14, and 18-20 above, and further in combination with D4.
With regards to claims 15 and 16, the D4 reference discloses the utilization of 3D printed acoustic isolators in logging tools (D4: ¶ 0056). It would have been obvious to modify the previous combination to utilize 3D printed acoustic isolators to reduce acoustic transmissions which could affect the acoustical measurements of the receivers.
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Examiner Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 Dan Pihulic whose telephone number is 571-272-6977. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Helal Algahaim, can be reached on 571-270-5227.
/Daniel Pihulic/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645