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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The previous claim rejections of Claims 1-20 has been addressed and is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160245952 A1, Dupuis et al. (hereinafter Dupuis) in view of US 3748574 A, Forrest et al. (hereinafter Forrest), in further view of US 20190128116 A1, Thiel et al. (hereinafter Thiel).
Regarding Claim 1, 9 and 16, Dupuis discloses a method, and control system configured to:
for each of a plurality of transmitter-receiver pairs of a deep directional resistivity (DDR) tool having different spacings and orientations (Dupuis, [0005] the first field signal is from a transmitter and receiver pair, and the second field signal may be from a transmitter and receiver pair that may share the transmitter and/or receiver that generated the first field signal, [0099] multiple axis sensor may include three orthogonal magnetometers (e.g., arranged to provide three discrete outputs, each corresponding to the x, y, or z component of the xyz Cartesian coordinate system). In one aspect, a logging system includes three orthogonal transmitters and the borehole contains at least one set of three orthogonal receivers that are similarly aligned with a respective transmitter, [0133] certain channels of a logging tool are used, e.g., two resistivity channels (A40H and P28H), six directional resistivity channels, and DDR data from spacings of 25 ft. and 35 ft) build an ultradeep harmonic anisotropic attenuation (UHAA) response table (Dupuis, [0101] The acquired data may also include various measurements that are derived from the antenna (e.g., transmitter and/or receiver) couplings. These measurements may include, for example, symmetrized directional amplitude (USDA) and symmetrized directional phase (USDP), anti-symmetrized directional amplitude (UADA) and anti-symmetrized directional phase (UADP), harmonic resistivity amplitude (UHRA) and harmonic resistivity phase (UHRP), and/or harmonic anisotropy amplitude (UHAA) and harmonic anisotropy phase (UHAP)) for a deep directional resistivity (DDR) tool based at least in part on a horizontal formation resistivity, formation resistivity anisotropy, a ratio of a vertical formation resistivity and the horizontal formation resistivity (Dupuis, [0093] Electromagnetic antennas (e.g., of LWD module(s)) with dipole moments may be oriented to be sensitive: (i) primarily to “horizontal resistivity” (Rh), which generally refers to electrical resistivity of a rock formation measured parallel to the attitude of the formation layer (e.g., bedding plane), (ii) primarily to “vertical resistivity” (R.sub.v) or resistivity anisotropy, which generally refers to electrical resistivity measured perpendicularly to the bedding plane, and/or (iii) be able to make or synthesize “symmetric” and “anti-symmetric” cross dipole measurements), a distance to a cased well (Dupuis, [0093] e.g., measurements that amplify or reduce sensitivity to the distance to nearby bed boundaries or direction and magnitude of formation dip and resistivity anisotropy with respect to the wellbore/instrument longitudinal axis), and a tool inclination angle in relation to a casing of the cased well (Dupuis, [0090] A MWD module 130 may include one or more of the following types of measuring devices: a weight-on bit measuring device, a torque measuring device, a vibration measuring device, a shock measuring device, a stick/slip measuring device, a direction measuring device, and an inclination measuring device (the latter two sometimes being referred to collectively as a D&I package));
receive ultradeep harmonic anisotropic attenuation (UHAA) data collected by the DDR tool while the DDR tool is deployed in a new well bore (Dupuis, [0105] Methods and apparatuses in this disclosure may be used to create a formation model to accurately image faults using (e.g., DDR) data. In one aspect, the fault position and dip were included in a formation model along with layering near the fault using a sequence of 1-D and 2-D model-based parametric inversions, gradually increasing the model complexity, shallow-to-deep, relying on knowledge of measurement sensitivities, and/or algorithm efficiency);
determine resistivity values based at least in part on the UHAA data (Dupuis, [0102] The use of (e.g., deep) directional electromagnetic measurements for well placement may be based on the application of a real-time automatic multilayer inversion. In one aspect, a (e.g., graphical) formation model is created by (e.g., fitting constants) using an inversion procedure. One example of an inversion procedure is a Gauss-Newton least-squares method, e.g., for 1-D or 2-D inversion of (e.g., resistivity) data);
reconstruct formation layers from measurement channels (Dupuis, [0105] Certain deep directional resistivity (DDR) tools enables drillers to navigate with respect to boundaries (e.g., boundaries that are parallel to the longitudinal axis of the wellbore) up to over 100 feet away (e.g., measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the wellbore) from the wellbore. Methods and apparatuses in this disclosure may be used to create a formation model to accurately image faults using (e.g., DDR) data. In one aspect, the fault position and dip were included in a formation model along with layering near the fault using a sequence of 1-D and 2-D model-based parametric inversions, gradually increasing the model complexity, shallow-to-deep, relying on knowledge of measurement sensitivities, and/or algorithm efficiency. The model parameterization may allow inverting fault and boundaries geometry and formation resistivities.) of a shallow resistivity measurement tool (Dupuis, [0105] “shallow directional resistivity” may refer to a depth of investigation of about or at least 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 feet. In one aspect, “shallow directional resistivity” may refer to a depth of investigation of about 2 to 15 feet. Both “shallow” and “deep” directional electromagnetic tools may record hundreds of measurements of different types (e.g., field signals) with different sensitivities) operating at a higher frequency and having shorter transmitter-receiver spacings than the DDR tool (Dupuis, [0128] six channels of a logging tool are used, e.g., two resistivities (P28H, e.g., 28 inches of spacing at 2 MHz, and P40H, e.g., 40 inches of spacing at 2 MHz) and four symmetrized directional channels (96 inches of spacing at the two frequencies—SAD1 (symmetrized attenuation measurement at 100 kHz), SAD4 (symmetrized attenuation measurement at 400 kHz), SPD1 (symmetrized phase-shift measurement at 100 kHz), and SPD4 (symmetrized phase-shift measurement at 400 kHz)), processing a 10 ft. (e.g., width) data sliding window in the inversion [0098] Depicted modules (120,120A,130) are illustrated as having the same length, although they may be of differing lengths. In one aspect, receivers and/or transmitters are spaced at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120 feet apart):
based on the reconstructed formation layers, estimate a position of the DDR tool within the formation layer (Dupuis, [0119] an estimate of the fault position and dip may be made to build an initial 2-D model (e.g., in 506), and a 2-D inversion may then be used (e.g., in 508) to adjust the position of the fault, for example, in measured depth (MD) and the fault angle. A 2-D inversion may decouple the layering and fault effect to solve for an accurate position and orientation of the fault consistent with the (e.g., directional resistivity) data);
responsive to the DDR tool being parallel to the formation layers (Dupuis, [0105] Certain deep directional resistivity (DDR) tools enables drillers to navigate with respect to boundaries (e.g., boundaries that are parallel to the longitudinal axis of the wellbore) up to over 100 feet away (e.g., measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the wellbore) from the wellbore. Methods and apparatuses in this disclosure may be used to create a formation model to accurately image faults using (e.g., DDR) data)…on the UHAA data based on measurements of the shallow resistivity measurement tool (Dupuis, [0101] these measurements may include, for example, symmetrized directional amplitude (USDA) and symmetrized directional phase (USDP), anti-symmetrized directional amplitude (UADA) and anti-symmetrized directional phase (UADP), harmonic resistivity amplitude (UHRA) and harmonic resistivity phase (UHRP), and/or harmonic anisotropy amplitude (UHAA) and harmonic anisotropy phase (UHAP). Other measurements combinations with directional (e.g., up to quadrant sensitivities) may be composed from available couplings. The methodology may be applicable to other types of processed data).
In addition to Claim 9 only, Dupuis discloses one or more processors configured to execute processor-executable instructions, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors (Dupuis,[0143] Aspects of the disclosure may be implemented as computer programs or program code executing on programmable systems comprising at least one processor, a storage system (including volatile and non-volatile memory and/or storage elements), at least one input device, and at least one output device).
build a UHAA response table for each of a plurality of transmitter-receiver pairs of the DDR tool (Dupuis, [0093] A transmitter and receiver may be utilized to detect (e.g., communicate the detected data) the resistivity of the formation 160 surrounding the borehole 111. In one aspect, LWD modules are axially spaced apart, e.g., eight feet apart or more. In one aspect, the LWD module(s) includes a first pair of transmitting and receiving antennas, and optionally a second pair of transmitting and receiving antennas. The second pair of antennas may be symmetric with respect to the first pair of antennas. The antennas may allow for (e.g., a controller and/or data recording device) to acquire the (e.g., induced field signal) data) having different spacings and orientations (Dupuis, [0130] data channels from a logging tool that may be available in real-time were utilized, e.g., two resistivity channels (A34H, e.g., 2 MHz at 34 in. spacing and P28H, e.g., 2 MHz at 28 in. spacing) and six symmetrized directional channels at 8 ft. spacing and frequencies of 100 kHz and 400 kHz. DDR data with spacings of 25 ft. and 35 ft., [0093] Electromagnetic antennas (e.g., of LWD module(s)) with dipole moments may be oriented to be sensitive: (i) primarily to “horizontal resistivity” (Rh), which generally refers to electrical resistivity of a rock formation measured parallel to the attitude of the formation layer (e.g., bedding plane)), each UHAA response table built based at least in part on a horizontal formation resistivity (Dupuis, [0093] electromagnetic antennas (e.g., of LWD module(s)) with dipole moments may be oriented to be sensitive: (i) primarily to “horizontal resistivity” (Rh), which generally refers to electrical resistivity of a rock formation measured parallel to the attitude of the formation layer (e.g., bedding plane)), formation resistivity anisotropy (Dupuis, [0105] Methods and apparatuses in this disclosure may be used to create a formation model to accurately image faults using (e.g., DDR) data. In one aspect, the fault position and dip were included in a formation model along with layering near the fault using a sequence of 1-D and 2-D model-based parametric inversions, gradually increasing the model complexity, shallow-to-deep, relying on knowledge of measurement sensitivities, and/or algorithm efficiency. The model parameterization may allow inverting fault and boundaries geometry and formation resistivities), a ratio of a vertical formation resistivity and the horizontal formation resistivity (Dupuis, [0093] Electromagnetic antennas (e.g., of LWD module(s)) with dipole moments may be oriented to be sensitive: (i) primarily to “horizontal resistivity” (Rh), which generally refers to electrical resistivity of a rock formation measured parallel to the attitude of the formation layer (e.g., bedding plane), (ii) primarily to “vertical resistivity” (R.sub.v) or resistivity anisotropy, which generally refers to electrical resistivity measured perpendicularly to the bedding plane, and/or (iii) be able to make or synthesize “symmetric” and “anti-symmetric” cross dipole measurements) and a tool inclination angle in relation to a casing of the cased well (Dupuis, [0090] a MWD module 130 may include one or more of the following types of measuring devices: a weight-on bit measuring device, a torque measuring device, a vibration measuring device, a shock measuring device, a stick/slip measuring device, a direction measuring device, and an inclination measuring device);
Dupuis does not disclose at least partially remove interference of the formation layers: and
determine a distance of the DDR tool from a casing of an existing well bore proximate the new wellbore based at least in part on the resistivity values and a UHAA response table for the DDR tool: and
modify at least one of a trajectory or a speed of the DDR tool through the new wellbore based on the distance of the DDR tool from the casing of the existing well bore.
However, Forrest teaches at least partially remove interference of the formation layers (Forrest, [Col. 1 Line 44 – Col. 2 Line 6] after the expected or normal and actual resistivities have been obtained, the fraction of normal resistivity (i.e. the reduction in normal resistivity due to the presence of a cased borehole) is deduced and then related to the distance between the wells using calculated data. The reduction in measured resistivity as a result of the presence of the case borehole is calculated using known relationships and plotted in relation to the distance between the cased and the open wells, [Col. 2 Line 12-17] The measured reduction in resistivity and nomographs are used to determine the distance between the wells at various depths. The distance is plotted with respect to the depth of the open well to obtain a clear and consistent picture of the path of the open well with respect to the cased well): and
determine a distance of the DDR tool from a casing of an existing well bore proximate the new wellbore based at least in part on the resistivity values and a UHAA response table for the DDR tool (Forrest, [Col 4 Line 34-54] Referring to FIGS. 7 and 8 there is shown the actual results obtained using the method of the present invention to locate a cased well from an open well. More particularly, FIG. 7 are the resistivity logs obtained using various logging configurations for the depth interval 10100 to 10800. Also plotted are the expected resistivity values. In FIG. 8 there is shown a plot of the ratio of the observed resistivity to the estimated resistivity for the three logging devices shown in FIG. 7. Various procedures are available for calculating the expected response of various configurations of resistivity tools in formtions having various resistivities. These procedures are used to calculate the expected resistivity values shown in FIGS. 7 and 8. Also shown is a plot of the distance between the open and the cased wells utilizing the nomographs shown in FIGS. 3-6. As can be seen from FIG. 8, the 20-foot normal resistivity tool provides a much sharper indication of the near point of the two wells than either the 75-ft. or the 150-ft. resistivity logging tools);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine both Dupuis and Forrest teachings because Dupuis determines resistivity responses using a deep directional resistivity (DDR) tool, while Forrest determines a distance between wellbores based on resistivity measurements and corresponding response relationships, including accounting for distortions in resistivity measurements caused by surrounding structures such as casing. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Forrest’s distance determination and measurement correction techniques to the resistivity measurements of Dupuis in order to determine a distance from the DDR tool in a new wellbore to a casing of an existing wellbore while improving the accuracy of the measurements used for formation evaluation and wellbore proximity determination, including compensating for interference effects, thereby improving well placement accuracy and reducing the risk of collision with existing wells.
Furthermore, Dupuis in view of Forrest does not disclose a UHAA response table;
modify at least one of a trajectory or a speed of the DDR tool through the new wellbore based on the distance of the DDR tool from the casing of the existing well bore.
However, Theil teaches a UHAA response table (Theil, [0127] a lookup table (similar to the table of FIG. 8) or other suitable data processing construct can be provided that tabulates dependence of the apparent resistivity measured by the propagation-type resistivity tool to dip, anisotropy and horizontal resistivity Rh for a homogeneous formation or a 1D EM simulator can be used to model the tool responses for the dipping anisotropic formation model, [0130] the apparent resistivity (or the equivalent phase shift measurement) as measured by the propagation-type resistivity tool for each formation layer of the current look-around zone 242 is passed to the look-up table or other data processing construct, which is used to lookup the horizontal resistivity Rh value that corresponds to the measured apparent resistivity (or the equivalent 2 MHz or 400 kHz phase shift or attenuation measurement) and to the updated dip and/or anisotropic resistivity of the formation layer as represented by the appropriate entry of the lookup table or data processing construct. Furthermore, the updated horizontal resistivity values identified by the table lookup as well as the updated dip and/or the updated vertical resistivity or the updated resistivity anisotropy of the formation layers (block 905) are used to update the first formation model and the inversion of block 901 is repeated)
modify at least one of a trajectory or a speed of the DDR tool through the new wellbore based on the distance of the DDR tool from the casing of the existing well bore (Thiel, [0053] The inversion methods (and corresponding systems) disclosed herein are intended to enhance the ability to dynamically control the position and orientation of the BHA 151 such that the drill bit of the BHA 151 follows the planned wellbore trajectory if practical. Furthermore, the position and orientation of the BHA 151 can be dynamically controlled in order to stay at an optimal distance with respect to reservoir boundaries and contacts, or to avoid nearby faults or other heterogeneities that are offset with respect to the BHA 151 along the planned wellbore trajectory during the drilling process. Furthermore, the position and orientation of the BHA 151 can be dynamically controlled to adjust to the trajectory of the wellbore (geo-steering) and terminate the wellbore (geo-stopping) based on the detection and characterization of reservoir boundaries and contacts or faults or other heterogeneities that are offset with respect to the BHA 151 during the drilling process).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine both Dupuis in view of Forrest and Thiel teachings because Thiel teaches adjusting a trajectory or speed of the drilling tool based on positional and formation information derived from processed resistivity measurements, including data obtained through modeling, inversion, and look up table techniques. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate Thiel’s trajectory control techniques into the combined system of Dupuis and Forrest in order to utilize the processed and interpreted resistivity data, including data organized in response tables, to modify a trajectory or speed of the DDR tool based on the determined distance from the casing of the existing wellbore, thereby improving wellbore steering, maintaining optimal spacing from nearby well structures, and enhancing overall drilling accuracy.
Regarding Claim 2 and 10, Dupuis in view of Forrest in further view of Thiel teaches the method of claim 1, comprising building the UHAA response table for the DDR tool (Dupuis, [0097] A data set of these field signals may be utilized to determine information about the section of earth (e.g., a formation) where the electromagnetic field was induced. Electromagnetic tomography may be utilized (e.g., based on induction physics and tomographic principles, laterolog, or other electrode type tool principles) to create a model (e.g., a 1-dimensional, 2-dimensional, or 3-dimensional map type of model) of the electrical conductivity or resistivity of the formation. Electromagnetic tomography may be used for oil and gas reservoir characterization and/or to map water and steam saturation (e.g., to determine the resistivity, permeability, or permittivity of the zone of interest between the boreholes)) based at least in part on a horizontal formation resistivity, formation resistivity anisotropy (Dupuis, [0093] Electromagnetic antennas (e.g., of LWD module(s)) with dipole moments may be oriented to be sensitive: (i) primarily to “horizontal resistivity” (Rh), which generally refers to electrical resistivity of a rock formation measured parallel to the attitude of the formation layer (e.g., bedding plane), (ii) primarily to “vertical resistivity” (R.sub.v) or resistivity anisotropy, which generally refers to electrical resistivity measured perpendicularly to the bedding plane, and/or (iii) be able to make or synthesize “symmetric” and “anti-symmetric” cross dipole measurements), a ratio of a vertical formation resistivity and the horizontal formation resistivity, a distance to a cased well, a tool inclination angle in relation to a casing of the cased well, or some combination thereof (Dupuis, [0117] the (e.g., initial) 2-D model (e.g., in model building 506) may include (e.g., capture) the block structure in both blocks (e.g., 602 and 604 in FIG. 6). For example, in each block, the dip may be averaged, the layers may be identified, and/or the resistivities (e.g., horizontal (R.sub.h) and vertical (R.sub.v)) may be averaged for each layer).
Regarding Claim 3, 11, and 17, Dupuis in view of Forrest in further view of Thiel discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the resistivity values comprises determining a horizontal formation resistivity (Dupuis, [0093] Electromagnetic antennas (e.g., of LWD module(s)) with dipole moments may be oriented to be sensitive: (i) primarily to “horizontal resistivity” (Rh), which generally refers to electrical resistivity of a rock formation measured parallel to the attitude of the formation layer (e.g., bedding plane), (ii) primarily to “vertical resistivity” (R.sub.v) or resistivity anisotropy, which generally refers to electrical resistivity measured perpendicularly to the bedding plane, and/or (iii) be able to make or synthesize “symmetric” and “anti-symmetric” cross dipole measurements).
Dupuis does not disclose a ratio of a vertical formation resistivity and the horizontal formation resistivity.
However, Forrest teaches a ratio of a vertical formation resistivity and the horizontal formation resistivity (Forrest, [Col 3. Line 19-22] alpha. = (.rho.v/.rho.h), rho.v = vertical resistivity of formation, rho.h = horizontal resistivity of formation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine both Dupuis and Forrest teachings because Dupuis discloses determining horizontal and vertical formation resistivities using directional electromagnetic measurements, while Forrest teaches expressing formation resistivity anisotropy as a ratio of vertical formation resistivity to horizontal formation resistivity. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate Forrest’s resistivity ratio into the system of Dupuis in order to characterize formation anisotropy using a normalized parameter derived from already determined vertical and horizontal resistivity values.
Regarding Claim 4, 12, and 18, Dupuis in view of Forrest in further view of Thiel teaches the method of claim 3, wherein determining the distance of the DDR tool from the casing of the existing wellbore proximate the new wellbore (Forrest, [Col 4 Line 34-54] Referring to FIGS. 7 and 8 there is shown the actual results obtained using the method of the present invention to locate a cased well from an open well. More particularly, FIG. 7 are the resistivity logs obtained using various logging configurations for the depth interval 10100 to 10800. Also plotted are the expected resistivity values. In FIG. 8 there is shown a plot of the ratio of the observed resistivity to the estimated resistivity for the three logging devices shown in FIG. 7. Various procedures are available for calculating the expected response of various configurations of resistivity tools in formtions having various resistivities. These procedures are used to calculate the expected resistivity values shown in FIGS. 7 and 8. Also shown is a plot of the distance between the open and the cased wells utilizing the nomographs shown in FIGS. 3-6. As can be seen from FIG. 8, the 20-foot normal resistivity tool provides a much sharper indication of the near point of the two wells than either the 75-ft. or the 150-ft. resistivity logging tools) comprises interpolating a tool response UHAA array on distance grids for a given horizontal formation resistivity (Forrest, [Col. 2 Line 9-17] One then prepares a series of nomographs for the various combination of conditions that will be encountered in the two wells. The measured reduction in resistivity and nomographs are used to determine the distance between the wells at various depths. The distance is plotted with respect to the depth of the open well to obtain a clear and consistent picture of the path of the open well with respect to the cased well.) and a ratio of a given vertical formation resistivity and the given horizontal formation resistivity (Forrest, [Col 3. Line 19-22] alpha. = (.rho.v/.rho.h), rho.v = vertical resistivity of formation, rho.h = horizontal resistivity of formation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine both Dupuis and Forrest teachings because Dupuis discloses determining horizontal and vertical formation resistivity values using a deep directional resistivity (DDR) tool and corresponding modeled responses, while Forrest teaches determining a distance between an open wellbore and a cased wellbore and expressing formation resistivity anisotropy as a ratio of vertical formation resistivity to horizontal formation resistivity based on resistivity measurements and response relationships. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate Forrest’s distance and ratio based resistivity techniques into the system of Dupuis in order to improve formation characterization and accurately determine proximity to an existing cased wellbore during drilling.
Regarding Claim 5, 13, and 19, Dupuis in view of Forrest in further view of Thiel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the distance of the DDR tool (Forrest, [Col. 2 Line 56-67] in FIG. 2 are the vertical angle as well as the distance "d" and the definition of the near point between the open well and the cased well when the open well is extended to pass the cased well) from the casing of the existing wellbore proximate the new wellbore (Forrest, [Col 4 Line 34-54] Referring to FIGS. 7 and 8 there is shown the actual results obtained using the method of the present invention to locate a cased well from an open well. More particularly, FIG. 7 are the resistivity logs obtained using various logging configurations for the depth interval 10100 to 10800. Also plotted are the expected resistivity values. In FIG. 8 there is shown a plot of the ratio of the observed resistivity to the estimated resistivity for the three logging devices shown in FIG. 7. Various procedures are available for calculating the expected response of various configurations of resistivity tools in formtions having various resistivities. These procedures are used to calculate the expected resistivity values shown in FIGS. 7 and 8. Also shown is a plot of the distance between the open and the cased wells utilizing the nomographs shown in FIGS. 3-6. As can be seen from FIG. 8, the 20-foot normal resistivity tool provides a much sharper indication of the near point of the two wells than either the 75-ft. or the 150-ft. resistivity logging tools) comprises interpolating the distance with data on an interpolated tool response array (Forrest, [Col. 2 Line 9-17] One then prepares a series of nomographs for the various combination of conditions that will be encountered in the two wells. The measured reduction in resistivity and nomographs are used to determine the distance between the wells at various depths. The distance is plotted with respect to the depth of the open well to obtain a clear and consistent picture of the path of the open well with respect to the cased well).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine both Dupuis and Forrest teachings because Dupuis discloses obtaining directional resistivity measurement using a DDR tool, while Forrest teaches determining a distance and relative geometry between an open wellbore and a cased wellbore, including a near point between the wells, based on resistivity measurements and corresponding response relationships. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Forrest’s distance and geometry based determination techniques to the DDR system of Dupuis in order to accurately determine proximity and relative orientation to an existing cased wellbore during drilling, thereby improving well placement and reducing the risk of collision.
Regarding Claim 6, 14, and 20, Dupuis in view of Forrest in further view of Thiel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the distance of the DDR tool from the casing of the existing wellbore proximate the new wellbore comprises subtracting a DDR tool response of formation layers through which the new wellbore extends (Forrest, [Col. 2 Line 24-26] FIG. 1 is a schematic view showing the notation used in calculating the reduction in resistivity due to the presence of the cased well, [Col. 1 Line 65 - Col. 2 Line 2] After the expected or normal and actual resistivities have been obtained, the fraction of normal resistivity (i.e. the reduction in normal resistivity due to the presence of a cased borehole) is deduced and then related to the distance between the wells using calculated data).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine both Dupuis and Forrest teachings because Dupuis discloses obtaining directional resistivity measurements using a deep directional resistivity (DDR) tool to determine proximity to an existing cased wellbore. Forrest teaches isolating the resistivity response attributable to a nearby cased well by subtracting an expected or normal resistivity response of surrounding formation layers, thereby reducing or removing the formation contribution in the measured signal. This subtraction or reduction technique is consistent with the claimed disclosure, which describes subtracting a formation response from measured DDR signals to mitigate formation effects. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Forrest’s reduction technique to the DDR measurements of Dupuis in order to more accurately determine the distance to an existing cased wellbore by reducing formation interference in the resistivity measurements.
Response to Amendment
35 USC§ 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 of the 35 USC§ 101 rejection
have been considered and the amendments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 16 addresses the rejection and are hereby withdrawn. The amendments to the following claims add additional limitations directed to modifying at least one of the trajectory or speed of the DDR tool. These limitations integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application and therefore overcome the 101 rejection.
35 USC§ 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 of the 35 USC§ 103 rejection have been fully considered but are unpersuasive and/or moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above over Dupuis in view of Forrest in further view of Thiel. As explained above, Dupuis teaches acquiring resistivity measurements including UHAA data from a deep directional resistivity tool, Forrest teaches determining distances between wellbores and compensating for distortions in resistivity measurements caused by surrounding structures such as casing, and Thiel teaches organizing measurement data using lookup tables and utilizing such processed data for modeling and control of drilling operations. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve the accuracy, reliability, and useability of resistivity based measurements for formation evaluation and wellbore positioning, including organizing such data into response tables and using the processed data to control drilling trajectory. Accordingly, the combination of Dupuis, Forrest, and Thiel renders the claimed subject matter obvious, and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 IBRAHIM NAGI SHOHATEE whose telephone number is (571)272-6612. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/IBRAHIM NAGI SHOHATEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights