DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 13, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The claim elements do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 205 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection including the US20210285324 reference.
References
D1: EP1275983 Birchak et al. January 15, 1997
D2: WO2022011294 KOURKOULIS et al. January 13, 2022
D3: US20210285324 SIREVAAG September 16, 2021
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in combination with D3.
With regards to claim 1, 13, and 20 the D1 reference discloses the utilization of computer-implemented (¶ 0075) method comprising: transmitting (32, 34) a first type of energy (500 kHz)(¶ 0016: symmetric plate waves) at a first angle (12 degrees) to a surface of a casing (24) of a wellbore (FIG. 1), the casing (24) being bonded to cement layer (26) that is between the casing (24) and a formation (28) of the wellbore; receiving a first signal from the casing; determining a first attenuation (¶ 0016) of the first type of energy based on the first signal; determining whether microannulus (¶ 0012) formation is present between the casing and the cement layer based on one or more characteristics of the first attenuation; and a second type of energy (180 kHz) at a second angle (25 degrees). The difference between the D1 reference and claims 1, 13, and 20 is that the claim recites the second angle is adjusted based on received instructions. The D3 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize more advanced transducers are available where the wave angle can be adjusted electronically (see ¶ 0048). It would have been obvious to modify the D1 reference to utilize more advanced transducers as motivated by the D3 reference to enable the D1 system to be more versitile.
With regards to claims 2, 14, and 18, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of transmitting (36, 38) a second type of energy (180 kHz) at a second angle (25 degrees) to the surface of the casing; receiving, a second signal from the casing; determining a second attenuation of the second type of energy based on the first signal; and determining a state of the cement layer and the microannulus formation based on one or more characteristics of the second attenuation (¶¶ 0038-0042).
With regards to claims 3 and 15, the D1 reference discloses determining a state of the bond between the casing and the cement layer based on the determination of whether the microannulus formation is present between the casing and the cement layer and the determination of the state of the cement layer and the formation. (¶¶ 0038-0042).
With regards to claims 4 and 17, the D1 reference discloses a motor (¶ 0023) for conveying a tool in a wellbore and the transducers 32 and 34 can operate in a pitch-catch mode (¶ 0026).
With regards to claims 5 and 19, the D1 reference discloses a motor (¶ 0023) for conveying a tool in a wellbore and the transducers 36 and 38 can operate in opposite directions (FIG. 1).
With regards to claim 6, the D1 reference discloses the second angle can be 25 degrees (¶¶ 0038-0042).
With regards to claim 8, the D1 reference discloses (¶¶ 0038-0042) the second type of energy is ultrasonic energy can be 180 kHz (¶ 0028).
With regards to claim 9, the D1 reference discloses determining whether a microannulus formation is present between the casing and cement layer based on one or more characteristic of the first attenuation and one or more characteristic of the second attenuation (¶¶ 0038-0042).
With regards to claim 10, the D1 reference discloses the first angle can be 12 degrees (Abstract).
With regards to claims 12 and 16, the D1 reference discloses the first type of energy is ultrasonic energy that can be 500 kHz (¶ 0016)
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in combination with D3 as applied to claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-20 above, and further in combination with D2.
Claim 7 and 11 additionally recites the utilization of zero-order asymmetric mode (A0) Lamb waves. The D2 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize zero-order asymmetric mode (A0) Lamb waves in a wellbore (page 17, lines 24-28; page 7, lines 25-35). It would have been obvious to modify the previous combination of references to utilize zero-order asymmetric mode (A0) Lamb waves as motivated by the D2 reference to assist the previous combination to increase accuracy of the measurements (page 17, lines 24-28; page 7, lines 25-35).
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Examiner 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.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dan Pihulic whose telephone number is 571-272-6977. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Isam Alsomiri, can be reached on 571-272-6970.
/Daniel Pihulic/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645