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 01/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, 20 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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bose (US 20180149019 A1) in view of Gill (US 5831934 A) and Tello (“The Fourier Transform Applied to Cased-hole Ultrasonic Scanner Measurements”).
Regarding claim 1, Bose teaches a system comprising: a transmitter (103) configured to transmit an acoustic signal into at least part of a casing in a borehole. (Abstract, Paragraph 55, 62, Figs.1A-1B, 3)
Bose also teaches a receiver (105A, 105B, 107) configured to receive a return signal of the acoustic signal from the at least part of the casing in the borehole. (Paragraph 55, 57, Figs.1A-1B, 3)
Bose also teaches a memory; and one or more processors coupled to the memory, the one or more processors being configured to: transform the return signal into a resonance signal extracting features from the return signal (At normal incidence and in thin steel casings that are 15 mm-thick and thinner, a casing thickness mode is excited in the typical frequency range of 200-500 kHz and leads to a resonant response for the received waveform)(Inversion can be used to estimate the decaying amplitude of the resonance response (casing S5 Lamb mode) of the received waveform and associate it with an acoustic impedance Z, which is equal to the product of compressional wave speed and density). (Paragraphs 123-124, 57)
Bose also teaches to determine, via a machine learning model (machine learning processing), a predicted borehole cement bonding (bond state) based on the segment of the resonance signal (resonant response for the received waveform) (resonance response (casing S5 Lamb mode) of the received waveform). (Paragraphs 57, 102-103, Figs.10, 14-15, Claim 26)
Bose also teaches to generate a bonding log (Cement-Bond-Log (CBL)) based on the predicted borehole cement bonding. (Paragraphs 62, 71, Figs.6A-7)
Bose does not explicitly teach wherein extracting the features comprises removing, via a filter, a frequency range outside of a resonance frequency of a borehole structure and determine a segment of the resonance signal in a time domain.
Tello teaches wherein extracting the features comprises removing, via a filter, a frequency range outside of a resonance frequency of a borehole structure. (Page.4, Page.2, left hand side, lines 34-39, Figs.3-4)
Gill teaches determine a segment of the resonance signal in a time domain. (Col.23, lines 55-59)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Bose to incorporate wherein extracting the features comprises removing, via a filter, a frequency range outside of a resonance frequency of a borehole structure as taught by Tello in order to provide precise control over signal manipulation, enhancing audio clarity by isolating specific frequencies, boosting desired tones, or removing unwanted noise and further modify Bose to incorporate to determine a segment of the resonance signal in a time domain as taught by Gill in order to process the spectral data and provide an accurate measurement of phase velocities.
Regarding claim 2, Bose teaches to select a resonance mode that determines a resonance frequency of the acoustic signal that is transmitted by the transmitter. (Paragraph 57)
Regarding claim 3, Bose does not explicitly teach wherein the extracting the features comprises applying the filter to the return signal to form a filtered signal that covers a resonance frequency of the transmitter.
Gill teaches wherein the extracting the features comprises applying the filter to the return signal to form a filtered signal that covers a resonance frequency of the transmitter. (Col.23, lines 38-62)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Bose to incorporate wherein the extracting the features comprises applying the filter to the return signal to form a filtered signal that covers a resonance frequency of the transmitter in order to obtain optimum frequency-time resolution.
Regarding claim 4, Bose teaches wherein the receiver is an azimuthal receiver and the extracting the features comprises decomposing the return signal based on a multipole order of a mode shape. (Paragraphs 62, 73, Fig.10)
Regarding claim 5, Bose teaches wherein the extracting the features comprises removing one or more propagating waves from the return signal. (Paragraphs 58, 60)
Regarding claim 6, Bose does not explicitly teach wherein the extracting the features comprises removing a baseline signal from the return signal.
Gill teaches wherein the extracting the features comprises removing a baseline signal from the return signa. (Abstract, Claims 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Bose to incorporate wherein the extracting the features comprises removing a baseline signal from the return signal in order to obtain optimum frequency-time resolution.
Regarding claim 7, Bose does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transform the resonance signal from the time domain to a frequency domain.
Gill teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transform the resonance signal from the time domain to a frequency domain. (Col.23, lines 55-62, Col.25, lines 10-14, Claims 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Bose to incorporate wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transform the resonance signal from the time domain to a frequency domain in order to obtain optimum frequency-time resolution.
Regarding claim 8, Bose teaches wherein the extracting the features comprises reducing a dimensionality of the resonance signal. (Paragraphs 58, 57, 75)
Regarding claim 9, Bose teaches wherein the predicted borehole cement bonding is determined, via the machine learning model, based on at least one of a geometry of the casing, a geometry of a tubing that is positioned in the casing, eccentricity of the tubing, a modal frequency, or a combination thereof. (Paragraphs 53, 84, Claims 1, 9-10, 14-15 Figs.10, 14-15)
Regarding claim 10, Bose teaches wherein the machine learning model comprises at least one of a regression model, an artificial neural network, a decision tree algorithm, or a regularization algorithm. (Paragraphs 11, 87, 103)
Regarding claims 11 and 20, the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claim 1. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 11 and 20, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 11 and 20 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 1.
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 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.
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.
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 claim8.
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
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