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 Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 of claims 8-10. Accordingly the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references cited do not teach claim 1 as amended. Specifically, Applicant argues that Bennett does not teach or suggest a tool layer of the formation disposed in a near-wellbore region that surrounds or at least partially surrounds the wellbore and further utilizing multiple arrival event processing to characterize such a tool layer.
Bennett, as shown in the previous Office Action, despite not specifically labeling it a tool layer, does teach a layer of the formation disposed in a near well-bore region that surrounds the wellbore (“Borehole 540 lies entirely within subterranean rock formation 500” ([0050]). As can be seen in Figure 5a, layer 500 completely surrounds the wellbore 540. Figure 5a further shows multiple arrival events 522 used in processing to characterize said layer using equations 1-3 (“The slowness of both layers can be determined using equation (3)” ([0053]).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Bennett (2009/0236145) in view of Hori (2017/0314385).
With respect to claim 1, Bennett teaches acquiring or obtaining sonic data from sonic measurements in a wellbore ([0071], lines 5-8) that traverses a formation having layers that have a high degree of dip relative to the wellbore ([0069], lines 4-5); and processing the sonic data using multiple arrival event processing to determine properties characterizing a tool layer of the formation and shoulder bed of the formation, the properties including elastic rock properties ([0053], lines 4-5; [0081], lines 4-5) and geometric information for the tool layer and shoulder bed ([0051], lines 2-3; [0053]; lines 6-7; [0054], lines 8-10; [0081], lines 3-4), respectively; wherein the tool layer of the formation is disposed in a near-wellbore region that surrounds or at least partially surrounds the wellbore ([0050], lines 3-5; Fig 5a:500), and the shoulder bed of the formation is disposed adjacent the tool layer of the formation ([0050], lines 5-8; Fig 5a:502); and wherein the processing of the sonic data determines slownesses of the tool layer of the formation and of the shoulder bed of the formation from the tool layer arrivals and the shoulder bed arrivals respectively ([0050], Eq 1-3; [0053], lines 4-5). However, it does not teach the properties including porosity; and determining both compressional and shear slownesses.
Hori teaches determining properties including porosity ([0058]; [0059]); and determining compressional and shear slownesses from arrivals ([0052], lines 17-21; [0053], lines 1-2; [0054], lines 1-3; [0055], lines 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Bennett with the compressional and shear slowness determinations of Hori since such a modification would have allowed for the improvement in the determination of formation properties and for the facilitation of optimization of further operations conducted in the formation such as fracturing, drilling or completing.
With respect to claim 2, Bennett teaches the wellbore comprises a horizontal wellbore or high angle wellbore ([0047], lines 10-13).
With respect to claim 3, Bennett as modified teaches the wellbore comprises a vertical wellbore that traverses highly dipped formation layers ([0043]; Fig 1, Fig 5a).
With respect to claim 5, Bennett teaches the processing of the sonic data further determines iii) distance to the shoulder bed ([0054], lines 8-10) as well as dip and azimuth of the shoulder bed using ray tracing inversion ([0067], lines 4-5; [0069], lines 4-8).
With respect to claim 6, Bennet teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach the processing of the sonic data determines iv) porosity and elastic properties of the tool layer using the compressional and shear slownesses of the tool layer in conjunction with empirical relations and rock physics models and v) porosity and elastic properties of the shoulder bed using the compressional and shear slownesses of the shoulder bed in conjunction with the empirical relations and rock physics models.
Hori teaches determining porosity and elastic properties of the shoulder bed using the compressional and shear slownesses of the shoulder bed in conjunction with the empirical relations and rock physics models ([0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Bennett with the porosity and elastic property determinations of Hori since such a modification would have allowed for the improvement in the determination of formation properties.
With respect to claim 8, Bennett teaches integrating the properties including porosity, water saturation, clastic rock properties and geometric information for the tool layer and shoulder bed into a two-dimensional layered model of the formation or a three-dimensional layered model of the formation ([0086], lines 1-3; [0087], lines 13-15, 21-22).
With respect to claim 9, Bennett teaches the two-dimensional layered model of the formation or three-dimensional layered model of the formation is constructed from at least one of wellbore image data and electromagnetic measurements of the formation ([0087], lines 2-4, 9-12).
With respect to claim 10, Bennett teaches using the two-dimensional layered model of the formation or the three-dimensional layered model of the formation for control of geosteering or directional drilling while drilling the wellbore ([0081]; [0082]).
With respect to claim 11, Bennett teaches using at least part of the properties including porosity, elastic rock properties and geometric information for the tool layer and shoulder bed for control of geosteering or directional drilling while drilling the wellbore ([0081]).
With respect to claim 13, Bennett teaches integrating at least part of the properties including porosity, elastic rock properties and geometric information for the tool layer and shoulder bed into a one-dimensional layered model of the formation or a three-dimensional geomechanical model of the formation ([0086], lines 1-3; [0087], lines 13-15, 21-22).
With respect to claim 15, Bennett teaches operating a sonic logging tool in the wellbore to perform sonic measurements that generate the sonic data ([0048], lines 6-8; 17-22).
With respect to claim 16, Bennett teaches the sonic logging tool is operated while drilling the wellbore to perform the sonic measurements that generate the sonic data while drilling the wellbore ([0048], lines 1-3); and at least part of the properties including porosity, elastic rock properties and geometric information for the tool layer and shoulder bed are used to control geosteering or directional drilling while drilling the wellbore ([0081]).
With respect to claim 17, Bennett teaches processor executing instructions ([0048], lines 9-16) configured to: acquire or obtaining sonic data from sonic measurements in a wellbore ([0071], lines 5-8) that traverses a formation having layers that have a high degree of dip relative to the wellbore ([0069], lines 4-5); and process the sonic data using multiple arrival event processing to determine properties characterizing a tool layer of the formation and shoulder bed of the formation, the properties including elastic rock properties ([0053], lines 4-5; [0081], lines 4-5) and geometric information for the tool layer and shoulder bed ([0051], lines 2-3; [0053]; lines 6-7; [0054], lines 8-10; [0081], lines 3-4), respectively; wherein the tool layer of the formation is disposed in a near-wellbore region that surrounds or at least partially surrounds the wellbore ([0050], lines 3-5; Fig 5a:500), and the shoulder bed of the formation is disposed adjacent the tool layer ([0050], lines 5-8; Fig 5a:502) and wherein the processor is further configured to excute instructions to process the sonic data to of determine slownesses of the tool layer of the formation and of the shoulder bed of the formation from the tool layer arrivals and the shoulder bed arrivals respectively ([0050], Eq 1-3; [0053], lines 4-5). However, it does not teach the properties including porosity; and determining both compressional and shear slownesses.
Hori teaches determining properties including porosity ([0058]; [0059]); and determining compressional and shear slownesses from arrivals ([0052], lines 17-21; [0053], lines 1-2; [0054], lines 1-3; [0055], lines 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Bennett with the compressional and shear slowness determinations of Hori since such a modification would have allowed for the improvement in the determination of formation properties and for the facilitation of optimization of further operations conducted in the formation such as fracturing, drilling or completing.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Bennett in view of Hori and further in view of Collins (WO 2015/199657).
With respect to claim 7, Bennett as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach the processing of the sonic data further determines vi) permeability of the tool layer using the compressional and shear slownesses of the tool layer and viii) permeability of the shoulder bed using the compressional and shear slownesses of the shoulder bed.
Collins teaches determining the permeability of a bed using the compressional and shear slownesses of the layer (pg. 7, lines 1-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Bennett with the permeability determination of Collins since such a modification would have allowed for optimal well management.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Bennett in view of Hori and further in view of Bartetzko (20180252101).
With respect to claim 12, Bennett as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach using at least part of the properties including porosity, elastic rock properties and geometric information for the tool layer and shoulder bed for completing the wellbore.
Bartetzko teaches using at least part of the properties including porosity, elastic rock properties and geometric information for the tool layer and shoulder bed for completing the wellbore ([0085]; lines 2-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Bennett with the well completion of Bartetzko since such a modification would have improved the stability of the wellbore and prevented leakage.
With respect to claim 14, Bennett as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach using the one-dimensional layered model of the formation or the three-dimensional geomechanical model of the formation for simulating stimulation of the formation and/or determining parameters associated with stimulation of the formation.
Bartetzko teaches using the one-dimensional layered model of the formation or the three-dimensional geomechanical model of the formation for simulating stimulation of the formation and/or determining parameters associated with stimulation of the formation ([0085], [0087], [0088]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Bennett with the formation modeling and simulation of Bartetzko since such a modification would have reduced drilling errors, thus saving considerable amounts of money.
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 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