Final Rejection
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 03/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the objection to claim 20. Accordingly, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants arguments to claim 1, applicant states “Fouda appears silent as to transmitting a signal that penetrates both the tubing and the casing and measuring signal waves from both the tubing and the casing”, examiner respectfully disagrees. Fouda teaches a transmitter 340 that can strike the innermost tubular to produce an acoustic signal and Fouda also teaches an acoustic source may comprise a source of pressure waves detectable within and around the wellbore, including but not limited to fluid leaks or the movement of earth or other material within a casing, within or around the cement disposed in the wellbore, as well as the area surrounding the wellbore (See Paragraphs 33, 38, 14-15 of Fouda). Thus, Fouda properly teaches transmitting a signal (transmitter 340) that penetrates both the tubing (innermost tubular) and the casing (casing) and measuring signal waves from both the tubing and the casing (pressure waves detectable within and around the wellbore, including but not limited to fluid leaks or the movement of earth or other material within a casing, within or around the cement disposed in the wellbore).
Further regarding applicants arguments to claim 1, applicant states “Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references appear silent as to "applying a beamforming algorithm to the array waveform to form a filtered signal,"”, examiner respectfully disagrees. Fouda teaches array-signal-processing techniques include various spatial filtering methods (also often referred to as “beamforming” methods) and Fouda also teaches wherein the measured acoustic signals from each of the sensors are combined with a spatial filtering method or a beamforming method (See Paragraph 36 and Claim 5 of Fouda). Thus, Fouda properly teaches applying a beamforming algorithm (beamforming method) to the array (array-signal/ measured acoustic signals from each of the sensors) waveform to form a filtered signal.
Further regarding applicants arguments to claim 1, applicant states “Applicant submits that the cited references, taken either alone or in hypothetical combination, appear silent as to "using the filtered signal to identify an eccentricity of the tubing within the casing and a cement bond between the cement and the casing," as recited in amended independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in amended independent claim 11.”, examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed below the combination of Fouda in view of Mandal and Topping teaches the newly added limitation as written.
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, 10-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouda (US 20220179117 A1) in view of Mandal (US 20200116007 A1) and Topping (US 20210033742 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fouda teaches a method comprising: disposing an acoustic logging tool (102) into a tubing of a wellbore (101), wherein the wellbore further comprises casing cemented (106) to a formation (105) by a cement. (Abstract, Paragraphs 18-20, Fig.1)
Fouda also teaches transmitting an acoustic signal (340) into at least part of the tubing (104) and at least part of the casing (106). (Paragraphs 18, 28, 32-33, 38 Figs.1)
Fouda also teaches measuring one or more signal waves (342-346, 404) from the at least part of the tubing (104) and the at least part of the casing (106). (Paragraphs 14-15, 32, 34-40, Figs.3-4)
Fouda also teaches computing an array waveform from the one or more signal waves. (Paragraphs 35-36, 69, Fig.4)
Fouda also teaches applying a beamforming algorithm to the array waveform to form a filtered signal. (36, 69, Claim 5, Fig.7)
Fouda also teaches using the filtered signal to identify a feature of the tubbing and casing (Paragraphs 36, 69, Claim 5) but does not explicitly teach using the signal to identify an eccentricity of the tubing within the casing and a cement bond between the cement and the casing.
Mandal teaches using the signal to identify an eccentricity of the tubing within the casing. (Paragraphs 23)
Topping teaches using the signal to identify a cement bond between the cement and the casing. (12-17, 26, Claim 1, Figs.1A-2B)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fouda to incorporate using the signal to identify an eccentricity of the tubing within the casing as taught by Mandal in order for identification of fluids/solids disposed behind pipe string and/or any casing in casing string and further modify Fouda to incorporate using the signal to identify a cement bond between the cement and the casing as taught by Topping in order to evaluate the integrity of cement that is around casing strings while logging in/through tubing.
Regarding claim 10, Fouda does not explicitly teach wherein a peak value is identified on the filtered signal to determine the cement bond.
Topping teaches wherein a peak value is identified on the filtered signal to determine the cement bond. (12-17, 26, Claim 1, Figs.1A-2B)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fouda to incorporate wherein a peak value is identified on the filtered signal to determine the cement bond in order to evaluate the integrity of cement that is around casing strings while logging in/through tubing.
Regarding claim 11, Fouda teaches a system (100) comprising: acoustic logging tool (102) comprising: at least one transmitter (340) that transmits an acoustic signal into at least part of a tubing (104) and at least part of a casing (106) that the acoustic logging tool may be disposed. (Abstract, Paragraphs 18, 28, 32-33, 38, Figs.1, 4)
Fouda also teaches at least one receiver (342-346, 404) that measures one or more signal waves from the at least part of the tubing and the at least part of the casing. (Paragraphs 14-15, 32, 34-40, Figs.3-4)
Fouda also teaches an information handling system (120) that is communicatively connected to the acoustic logging tool (102). (Paragraphs 21-23, 30, Fig.1)
Fouda also teaches to compute an array waveform from the one or more signal waves. (Paragraphs 35-36, 69, Fig.4)
Fouda also teaches to apply a beamforming algorithm to the array waveform to form a filtered signal. (36, 69, Claim 5, Fig.7)
Fouda also teaches a cement bond between a cement and the at least part of the casing in a wellbore. (Paragraphs 14, 36, 69, Fig.1)
Fouda also teaches to use the filtered signal to identify a feature of the tubbing and casing (Paragraphs 36, 69, Claim 5) but does not explicitly teach to use the signal to identify an eccentricity of the tubing within the at least part of the casing and a cement bond between the cement and the at least part of the casing.
Mandal teaches to use the signal to identify an eccentricity of the tubing within the at least part of the casing. (Paragraphs 23)
Topping teaches to use the signal to identify a cement bond between the cement and the at least part of the casing. (12-17, 26, Claim 1, Figs.1A-2B)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fouda to incorporate to use the signal to identify an eccentricity of the tubing within the at least part of the casing as taught by Mandal in order for identification of fluids/solids disposed behind pipe string and/or any casing in casing string and further modify Fouda to incorporate to use the signal to identify a cement bond between the cement and the at least part of the casing as taught by Topping in order to evaluate the integrity of cement that is around casing strings while logging in/through tubing.
Regarding claim 20, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 10. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 20, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 10.
Claim(s) 2-3, 6, 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouda in view of Mandal, Topping and Guedes (US 20210247538 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Fouda does not explicitly teach applying a third interface echo (TIE) enhancement action to the array waveform.
Guedes teaches applying a third interface echo (TIE) enhancement action to the array waveform. (Paragraphs 113, 115)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fouda to incorporate applying a third interface echo (TIE) enhancement action to the array waveform in order to obtain quick low-resolution logs.
Regarding claim 3, Fouda does not explicitly teach wherein the TIE enhancement action comprises a baseline removal, a time filtering, a F-K filtering, a time windowing, or a receiver selection.
Guedes teaches wherein the TIE enhancement action comprises a baseline removal, a time filtering, a F-K filtering, a time windowing, or a receiver selection. (Paragraphs 113, 115)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fouda to incorporate wherein the TIE enhancement action comprises a baseline removal, a time filtering, a F-K filtering, a time windowing, or a receiver selection in order to obtain quick low-resolution logs.
Regarding claim 6, Fouda does not explicitly teach wherein the measuring the one or more signal waves is performed by a TIE ray tracing.
Guedes teaches wherein the measuring the one or more signal waves is performed by a TIE ray tracing. (Paragraphs 113, 115)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fouda to incorporate wherein the measuring the one or more signal waves is performed by a TIE ray tracing in order to obtain quick low-resolution logs.
Regarding claim 12, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 2. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 12, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 3. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 13, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 6. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 16, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 6.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouda in view of Mandal, Topping and Mandal 281 (US 20160258281 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Fouda does not explicitly teach wherein the beamforming algorithm is a delay-and-sum algorithm.
Mandal 281 teaches wherein the beamforming algorithm is a delay-and-sum algorithm. (Paragraphs 75-77, 9, 24, 32, Claim 1, Figs. 5, 12)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fouda to incorporate wherein the beamforming algorithm is a delay-and-sum algorithm in order to determine the measure of whether there is a noise source at the radius from the borehole at or around the particular displacement along the borehole.
Regarding claim 5, Fouda does not explicitly teach applying a time window to the array waveform to shift the array waveform.
Mandal 281 teaches wherein applying a time window to the array waveform to shift the array waveform. (Paragraphs 32, 75-77, 9, 24, Claim 1, Figs. 5, 12)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fouda to incorporate applying a time window to the array waveform to shift the array waveform in order to determine the measure of whether there is a noise source at the radius from the borehole at or around the particular displacement along the borehole.
Regarding claim 14, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 4. 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 4.
Regarding claim 15, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 5. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 15, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 5.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouda in view of Mandal, Topping and Liu (US 20200049850 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Fouda does not explicitly teach wherein the measuring the one or more signal waves is performed by a guided wave ray tracing.
Liu teaches wherein the measuring the one or more signal waves is performed by a guided wave ray tracing. (Paragraphs 103-104, Claims 1, 3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fouda to incorporate wherein the measuring the one or more signal waves is performed by a guided wave ray tracing in order to obtain information regarding the borehole environment.
Regarding claim 8, Fouda does not explicitly teach applying a guided wave mode enhancing action to the array waveform.
Liu teaches applying a guided wave mode enhancing action to the array waveform. (Paragraphs 17, 89, Claims 1, 8)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Mandal to incorporate applying a guided wave mode enhancing action to the array waveform in order to obtain information regarding the borehole environment.
Regarding claim 9, Fouda does not explicitly teach wherein the guided wave mode enhancing action comprises a baseline removal, a time filtering, a F-K filtering, a time windowing, or a receiver selection.
Liu teaches wherein the guided wave mode enhancing action comprises a baseline removal, a time filtering, a F-K filtering, a time windowing, or a receiver selection. (Paragraphs 89, 88)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Mandal to incorporate wherein the guided wave mode enhancing action comprises a baseline removal, a time filtering, a F-K filtering, a time windowing, or a receiver selection in order to obtain information regarding the borehole environment.
Regarding claim 17, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 7. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 17, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 8. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 18, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 9. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 19, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 9.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights