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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendments filed December 4th, 2025, the following has occurred: Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections applied to the claims; claim1 has been amended; claim 8 has been cancelled; claims 1-7 remain pending in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoversten et al. (US 10310127 B2, “Hoversten’) in view of Wilson et al. (US 20200271811 A1, “Wilson”).
Regarding claim 1, Hoverston discloses a computer-implemented method of determining well integrity ([column 3, lines 27-29], well integrity failure includes well casing integrity failure)([column 5, lines 29-34], seismic datasets may be compared to datasets of wells with known well integrity failure to determine the presence of well integrity failure indicators); attaching a vibrational source to an exterior or interior section of well hardware, wherein the well hardware is a wellhead or well casing ([column 5, lines 1-8] seismic source may be a vibrator or sledge hammer applied to the well casing. seismic source may be placed at the wellhead); using the vibrational source to generate seismic signal that moves through the wellbore and is reflected as a reflected seismic signal at places in the wellbore where the wellbore is deformed, the cement quality varies, or the surrounding rock formation has property changes ([column 3, lines 27-29], well integrity failure includes well casing integrity failure)([column 5, lines 29-34], seismic datasets may be compared to datasets of wells with known well integrity failure to determine the presence of well integrity failure indicators)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that determining well integrity failure is equivalent to identifying wellbore deformation);
Hoverston may not explicitly teach deploying seismic sensors in a wellbore; creating a seismic dataset by recording the seismic signal at the seismic sensors; processing the seismic dataset to make a processed seismic image; generating a graphical representation of the processed seismic image; and displaying the graphical representation on a graphical display; identifying at least one of wellbore deformation, well casing damage, or problems with cement..
Wilson teaches deploying seismic sensors in a wellbore ([0030] A DAS system may be deployed with the wellbore that is coupled to an optical fiber and is at least partially positioned in the wellbore); creating a seismic dataset by recording the seismic signal at the seismic sensors; processing the seismic dataset to make a processed seismic image; generating a graphical representation of the processed seismic image; and displaying the graphical representation on a graphical display([0050], seismic data from DAS data may be utilized to form underground images)([0035], received seismic datasets acquired by DAS system may be stored in a data base to convey seismic data from the DAS to operators of drilling and logging equipment).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wellbore acoustic sensing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Hoverston, to include the seismic data imaging of Wilson with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of conveying the data to operators of drilling and/or logging equipment [0035].
Regarding claim 2, Hoverston, as modified in view of Wilson teaches the method of claim 1. Wilson further teaches wherein the seismic sensors are a distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) fiber([0030] A DAS system may be deployed with the wellbore that is coupled to an optical fiber and is at least partially positioned in the wellbore).
Regarding claim 4, Hoverston, as modified in view of Wilson teaches the method of claim 1. Hoverston further teaches the vibrational source is a percussive source using planned metallic collisions([column 5, lines 1-8] seismic source may be a vibrator or sledge hammer applied to the well casing. seismic source may be placed at the wellhead).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoverston in view of Wilson and Sing et al. (US 20210238978 A1, “Singh”).
Regarding claim 3, Hoverston, as modified in view of Wilson teaches the method of claim 1. Hoverston, as modified in view of Wilson may not explicitly teach wherein the vibrational source is a speaker. Singh teaches teach wherein the vibrational source is a speaker ([0035], DAS system includes a fiber optic line and an acoustic speaker).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wellbore acoustic sensing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Hoverston, as modified in view of Wilson to include the acoustic speaker of Singh with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of generating controlled noise within the wellbore to allow the DAS fiber to measure the response as a function of depth [0049].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoverston in view of Wilson and Kamata et al. (US 20130315032 A1, “Kamata”).
Regarding claim 5, Hoverston, as modified in view of Wilson teaches the method of claim 1. Hoverston, as modified in view of Wilson may not explicitly teach wherein the seismic signal sweeps across frequencies from 10 Hz to 360 Hz.
Kamata teaches wherein the seismic signal sweeps across frequencies from 10 Hz to 360 Hz ([0073], programmed sweep of the vibrator actuator is controlled to a frequency range between about 10 and 500 Hz).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wellbore acoustic sensing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Hoverston, as modified in view of Wilson to include the frequency sweep seismic signal of Kamata, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of optimizing the sweep for a variety of survey types and environments [0073].
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoverston in view of Wilson, Kamata, and Orban (US 9523784 B2, “Orban”).
Regarding claim 6, Hoverston, as modified in view of Wilson and Kamata teaches the method of claim 5. Hoverston, as modified in view of Wilson and Kamata may not explicitly teach wherein the processing includes source de-signature.
Orban teaches wherein the processing includes source de-signature. ([column 16, lines 37-43], cross correlation is performed between the received data and the transmitted sweep signal)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wellbore acoustic sensing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Hoverston, as modified in view of Wilson and Kamata to include the source de-signature of Orban, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of converting the data into an impulse type result [column 16, lines 37-43].
Regarding claim 7, Hoverston, as modified in view of Wilson, Kamata and Orban teaches the method of claim 6. Orban further teaches wherein the source de-signature is cross-correlation of the seismic signal and the seismic dataset.([column 16, lines 37-43], cross correlation is performed between the received data and the transmitted sweep signal)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed December 4th, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hoverston in view of Wilson.
On pg. 2 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that due to the alleged allowability of claim 1, the dependent claims are therefore in condition for allowance and none of Hartog, Kamata, Orban, nor Hoversten teaches the limitations required by claim 1 for the following reason:
Hartog, Kamata, Orban, and Hoversten fail to teach attaching a vibrational source to an exterior or interior section of well hardware wherein the well hardware is a wellhead or well casing
With respect to (1), the examiner respectfully disagrees as Hoversten teaches the required limitation at [column 5, lines 1-8], which states that the seismic source may be a vibrator or sledge hammer applied to the well casing, and that the seismic source may be placed at the wellhead. Therefore the rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2-7 are maintained, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Stokely et al. (US 20140150523 A1, “Stokely) which discloses a system and method for calibrating a wellbore sensing system
Therrien et al. (US 20210173111 A1, “Therrien”) which discloses a well monitoring system based on distributed acoustic sensing
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 CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645 /YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645