DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 4th May, 2026. Claim(s) 1 and 14 were amended; No Claim(s) were cancelled, and No Claim(s) were added. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-20 are pending in current application and are addressed below. Examiner appreciates the courtesies extended by applicant throughout the prosecution of this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/01/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification (more than 20 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 9 of 12), with respect to the rejections of Claim(s) 1, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102“(a)(1)” or “(a)(2)” or both as being anticipated by Mandal (US 2023/0212936 A1) are fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amended claims. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection, necessitated by the amendment is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied references and new prior art as described below. Claim(s) 1 and 14 have been amended; therefore, Claim(s) 1-3 and 12-16 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal (US 2023/0212936 A1) in view of Wright (US 5,216,638).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal (US 2023/0212936 A1) in view of Wright (US 5,216,638).
Referring to Claim 1, Mandal teaches a method (109) comprising:
disposing an acoustic logging tool (Fig. 1) into a wellbore (117), wherein the acoustic logging tool comprises an acoustic transmitter, an acoustic transducer (103), and/or an acoustic receiver;
transmitting one or more acoustic waveforms (107) from the acoustic logging tool (Fig. 1) with the acoustic transmitter or the acoustic transducer (103);
recording one or more reflected acoustic waveforms (111) at the acoustic logging tool with the acoustic receiver or the acoustic transducer (103) ([0007]; [0019]; [0023]; [0025]; Claim(s) 1. 9, 16; Fig. 1);
separating a first echo segment and a reverberation segment of a reflected waveform from the one or more reflected acoustic waveforms ([0064]; Claim 1; Fig. 1, 7: identifying a pulse portion (701) of the reflection signal (111), wherein the pulse portion (701) can be distinct from a reverberation portion (703) of the reflection signal (111) by amplitude);
performing an inversion on at least the first echo segment, wherein the inversion comprises: producing a casing thickness ([0059], claims 1, 8, and figures 1, 7: analyzing the pulse portion (701) to determine an actual value for an attribute of the reflection signal; and based on the actual value, executing a model to generate a plurality of synthetic values for a thickness of the cement casing (109)).
However, Mandal doesn’t explicitly teach based at least in part on computing a segmentation time of the reflected waveform.
Wright teaches based at least in part on computing a segmentation time of the reflected waveform (Col. 5, Ln. 30-62: Time origin t0 is defined by the instant at which analytic signal Sa (t) has a peak[…] the time coordinate t0 of the maximum is taken as being the time origin; Col. 5, Ln 63-Col. 6, Ln. 15: Portion CW of signal S(t) used for normalization purposes is defined by a narrow time window (-t1, +t1), referred to hereinafter as the normalization window, centered at time origin t.sub.0 and can be defined as the early portion of the wide window).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method disclosed in Mandal with computing a segmentation time of the reflected waveform taught in Wright with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have improved the reliability and consistency of separating initial reflection portions of reverberation portions prior to casing thickness evaluation, particularly in the presence of signal noise and transducer variation as taught by Wright (Col. 5, ln. 30-36).
Referring to Claim 2, Mandal teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising acquiring one or more downhole properties for the inversion, wherein one or more downhole properties comprise cement properties, casing properties, transducer offset, and/or eccentricity ([0059], claims 1, 8, and figures 1, 7: the reflection signal (111) received at the well tool and used to determine the thickness of the cement casing (109)).
Referring to Claim 3, Mandal teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising compute metric a from the reverberation segment ([0065] and figure 8: the reverberation portion (805) may be characterized by frequency peaks).
Referring to Claim 12, Mandal teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising determining a mud impedance ([0031], [0059], claims 1, 8, and figures 1, 7: a plurality of synthetic casing-attribute values can include values for drilling mud impedance, wherein the plurality of synthetic casing-attribute values may be the plurality of synthetic values generated based on the analysis of the pulse portion (701)).
Referring to Claim 13, Mandal teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the inversion utilizes the mud impedance to produce a compressional impedance ([0031]: the values for the drilling mud impedance).
Referring to Claim 14, Mandal teaches a system comprising:
an acoustic logging tool (Fig. 1), wherein the acoustic logging tool comprises:
an acoustic transmitter (103), wherein the acoustic transmitter is configured to transmit one or more acoustic waveforms (107) from the acoustic logging tool (Fig. 1);
an acoustic receiver, wherein the acoustic receiver is configured to record one or more reflected acoustic waveforms at the acoustic logging tool ([0007]; [0019]; [0023]; [0025]; Claim(s) 1. 9, 16; Fig. 1);
an information handling system (101) communicability coupled to the acoustic logging tool ([0025]-[0026]), wherein the information handling system is configured for:
separating a first echo segment and a reverberation segment of a reflected waveform from the one or more reflected acoustic waveforms ([0064]; Claim 1; Fig. 1, 7: identifying a pulse portion (701) of the reflection signal (111), wherein the pulse portion (701) can be distinct from a reverberation portion (703) of the reflection signal (111) by amplitude);
performing an inversion on at least the first echo segment, wherein the inversion comprises: producing a casing thickness ([0059], claims 1, 8, and figures 1, 7: analyzing the pulse portion (701) to determine an actual value for an attribute of the reflection signal; and based on the actual value, executing a model to generate a plurality of synthetic values for a thickness of the cement casing (109)).
However, Mandal doesn’t explicitly teach based at least in part on computing a segmentation time of the reflected waveform.
Wright teaches based at least in part on computing a segmentation time of the reflected waveform (Col. 5, Ln. 30-62: Time origin t0 is defined by the instant at which analytic signal Sa (t) has a peak[…] the time coordinate t0 of the maximum is taken as being the time origin; Col. 5, Ln 63-Col. 6, Ln. 15: Portion CW of signal S(t) used for normalization purposes is defined by a narrow time window (-t1, +t1), referred to hereinafter as the normalization window, centered at time origin t.sub.0 and can be defined as the early portion of the wide window).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method disclosed in Mandal with computing a segmentation time of the reflected waveform taught in Wright with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have improved the reliability and consistency of separating initial reflection portions of reverberation portions prior to casing thickness evaluation, particularly in the presence of signal noise and transducer variation as taught by Wright (Col. 5, ln. 30-36).
Claim 15 is essentially the same as Claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 12 above.
Claim 16 is essentially the same as Claim 13 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 13 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4-11 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim(s) 4 is allowable for disclosing metric α constrains the inversion for mud and annular impedance to a 1D inversion over a curve. These limitations, in combinations in the claims, were not found in the prior art.
Claim(s) 5-11 directly or indirectly depend on Claim 4, and is therefore allowable for that matter.
Claim 17 is allowable for disclosing wherein the inversion further comprises choosing a casing thickness test value and an annular impedance test value and comprises retrieving one or more reflectivities with the mud impedance, the casing thickness test value, and the annular impedance test value with a reflectivity model library. These limitations, in combinations in the claims, were not found in the prior art.
Claim(s) 18-20 directly or indirectly depend on Claim 17, and is therefore allowable for that matter.
Examiner’s 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights