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 arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes that the independent claims have been amended to include “wherein a propagation path of the sonic wavefront passes through both the shoulder bed and the tool layer to characterize the tool layer and the shoulder bed”. The Applicant has provided no citations as to where this added limitation has been drawn from. The Examiner can no reference to this limitation in the specification or the claims as originally filed. It appears to be new matter.
Applicant further argues that Bennett does not teach the added limitation, pointing to Fig 5a and its depictions of 520, 522, and 524. The Examiner argues that the Applicant’s own Figure 2 shows nearly identical raypaths for Shoulder Bed arrivals and Tool Layer arrivals, with Bennett’s 520 corresponding to shoulder bed arrivals and 522 to tool layer arrivals. As noted above, the Examiner cannot find any references in the specification or in the figures which would correspond to the limitation that are not depicted by Figure 2.
The Examiner further argues that at least Bennett’s raypath depicted in Fig 5a: 520 does in fact pass through both the shoulder bed and the tool layer to characterize the tool layer and the shoulder bed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein a propagation path of the sonic wavefront passes through both the shoulder bed and the tool layer to characterize the tool layer and the shoulder bed”. There is no support for this limitation in the specification.
Claims 2-3 and 5-16 depend from claim 1 and incorporate it in its entirety. They are therefore rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim 17 recites “wherein a propagation path of the sonic wavefront passes through both the shoulder bed and the tool layer to characterize the tool layer and the shoulder bed”. There is no support for this limitation in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (2009/0236145) in view of Hori (2017/0314385).
With respect to claim 1, Bennett teaches acquiring or obtaining sonic data from sonic measurements from at least one sonic wavefront 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); wherein a propagation path of the sonic wavefront passes through both the shoulder bed and the tool layer to characterize the tool layer and the shoulder bed ([0050], lines 13-19; equations 1-3; Fig 5a: 520) 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 from at least one sonic wavefront 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), 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 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
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
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
Prosecution Insights