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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 12/03/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the step which results in the determined correlation function.
Claim 1 recites “determining physical properties of a casing and physical properties of drilling mud gathered by one or more sensors of a downhole tool during operation of the downhole tool in a borehole; and
determining a correlation function based on the physical properties of the casing and physical properties of the drilling mud as well as one selected value of impedance for an annulus, wherein the correlation function is determined by: performing a 3D simulation based on the physical properties of the casing and physical properties of the drilling mud as well as the one selected value of impedance for the annulus to determine a first pulse-echo waveform and performing a 1D inversion on the first pulse-echo waveform to determine a first raw impedance; determining a second pulse-echo waveform based on known field data and performing a 1D inversion on the second pulse-echo waveform to determine a second raw impedance; and determining a correlation based on the first raw impedance and the second raw impedance that converts the first raw impedance to the second raw impedance; determining a first calibration function that determines a true impedance, wherein the first calibration function is determined by: performing a 2D simulation based on the physical properties of the casing and physical properties of the drilling mud as well as a range of one or more values of impedance for the annulus to determine a third pulse-echo waveform and performing a 2D inversion on the third pulse-echo waveform to determine a third raw impedance; applying a 2D/3D mapping function to the third raw impedance to determine a fourth raw impedance; deriving the first calibration function to map the fourth raw impedance to a true impedance; and
applying the determined correlation function to the determined true impedance to obtain a final calibration function.”
The frame of the claim, namely “determining physical properties of a casing and physical properties of drilling mud gathered by one or more sensors of a downhole tool during operation of the downhole tool in a borehole; and
determining a correlation function based on the physical properties of the casing and physical properties of the drilling mud as well as one selected value of impedance for an annulus; … and
applying the determined correlation function to the determined true impedance to obtain a final calibration function.” would be possible and patentable if the clause within the “determining a correlation function” step contained the step of how the correlation function was determined.
The clause in question, “performing a 3D simulation based on the physical properties of the casing and physical properties of the drilling mud as well as the one selected value of impedance for the annulus to determine a first pulse-echo waveform and performing a 1D inversion on the first pulse-echo waveform to determine a first raw impedance; determining a second pulse-echo waveform based on known field data and performing a 1D inversion on the second pulse-echo waveform to determine a second raw impedance; and determining a correlation based on the first raw impedance and the second raw impedance that converts the first raw impedance to the second raw impedance; determining a first calibration function that determines a true impedance, wherein the first calibration function is determined by: performing a 2D simulation based on the physical properties of the casing and physical properties of the drilling mud as well as a range of one or more values of impedance for the annulus to determine a third pulse-echo waveform and performing a 2D inversion on the third pulse-echo waveform to determine a third raw impedance; applying a 2D/3D mapping function to the third raw impedance to determine a fourth raw impedance; deriving the first calibration function to map the fourth raw impedance to a true impedance”, results in the derivation of a first calibration function. It is not clear if this is intended to be the required correlation function. The only correlation that can be found would seem to be in line 15, “determining a correlation based on the first raw impedance and the second raw impedance that converts the first raw impedance to the second raw impedance”. It is unclear if this is intended to be the required correlation function. The fact that this is not the result of the set of steps recited in the clause following “wherein the correlation function is determined by…”, would suggest it is not. Therefore the Examiner cannot determine where or how the determined calibration function is in fact determined in order to be applied in the final limitation of the claim.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and incorporate it in its entirety. They are therefore rejected for the same reasons as presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-5:30pm).
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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645