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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao (2023, SPWLA 64th Annual Logging Symposium).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Zhao discloses a method comprising:
disposing a bottom hole assembly (BHA) into a wellbore at a depth, wherein the BHA comprises [[abstract] Cement bonding logging (CBL) has recently evolved to include logging-while-drilling (LWD) sonic tools due to the multiple benefits of LWD logging.]:
at least one transmitter configured to transmit an acoustic waveform into at least a casing [[fig. 1] shows transmitter with arrow generating casing waves]; and
at least one receiver configured to record one or more casing waveforms that originate from within or behind the casing [[fig. 1] shows receivers detecting casing waves as shown by multiple return arrows];
calculating at least an attenuation and a magnitude with the one or more casing waveforms [[pg. 2, col. 1] instead of using each individual amplitude value, we propose to use the correlation between the amplitude trend and the attenuation trend to iteratively update real attenuation values.];
calculating a correlation coefficient between the attenuation and magnitude [[fig. 3] shows block with calculate the correlation coefficient between RX1 (magnitude at the 1st receiver) and RealAtt]; and
forming a cement bond log based at least in part on the correlation coefficient [[fig. 5] benchmark bond index log is obtained from wireline CBL in the same well. We use wireline CBL results as the benchmark because wireline CBL tools usually do not have strong tool waves due to their ideal tool wave attenuation and isolation. From this benchmark, we see that the top part of the well has almost perfect cement bonds while the bottom part has very poor cement bonds; [pg. 4, col. 1] this is based on the thought that RX1 and RealAtt should be negatively correlated over a large depth range. During each iteration, we move through all depths and change branch indicator values if the correlation coefficient can be reduced. Usually after 10 iterations, the branch indicator stops changing and the correlation coefficient reaches a minimum].
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Zhao teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11, wherein the two or more downhole parameters are an apparent attenuation and a magnitude of a first receiver from the one or more receivers [[pg. 3, col. 1] the magnitude at the 1st receiver (RX1) in dB, the apparent attenuation at the last receiver (AppAtt) in dB/ft].
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Zhao teaches the method of claim 2 and the system of claim 12, further comprising inverting apparent attenuation in a summation model to form a first possible real attenuation and a second possible real attenuation at the depth [[sec. results] after obtaining the summation model, we notice that there are two branches in the model, left and right, as shown in Figure 4. Based on the two branches, we can invert AppAtt into two possible RealAtt values at each depth, based on Strategy 1. To indicate which one of the two possible RealAtt we will choose at each depth, we introduce the branch indicator at each depth, which is the flag of 0 or 1 corresponding to RealAtt inverted from the right or left branches, respectively. For instance, in].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 and 14-20 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.
Izuhara (US 2017/0226844 A1; ids) shows two branches of a signal processing flowchart with the calculations of amplitude on the left and the calculation of attenuation on the right.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the closest prior art of record does not appear to teach the method of claim 3 nor the system of claim 13, wherein a branch indicator selects between the first possible real attenuation and the second possible real attenuation to determine a real attenuation.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the closest prior art of record therefore does not appear to teach the method of claims 4 and 14, wherein the branch indicator selects first possible real attenuation if the branch indicator is a left branch and selects second possible real attenuation if the branch indicator is a right branch.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the closest prior art of record therefore does not appear to teach the method of claims 5 nor the system of claim 15, wherein the branch indicator is initially randomly distributed between left branches and right branches.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the closest prior art of record therefore does not appear to teach the method of claim 4 nor the system of claim 14, wherein the correlation coefficient is calculated by: Cov(RX1,RealAtt)P RX1 RealAttLRX1 6RealAtt wherein, RX1 is the magnitude of the first receiver, RealAtt is the real attenuation, pRX1RealAttthe correlation coefficient, Cov(RX1, RealAtt) is the covariance of variables RX1 and RealAtt, aRX1 is the is the standard deviation of the magnitude of the first receiver, and 6RealAtt is the is the standard deviation of the real attenuation.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the closest prior art of record therefore does not appear to teach the method of claim 4 nor the system of claim 14, further comprising determining if the correlation coefficient is minimized by comparing it to a previous correlation coefficient from a previous iteration.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the closest prior art of record therefore does not appear to teach the method of claim 8 nor the system of claim 18, further comprising updating the branch indicator if the correlation coefficient is not minimized.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the closest prior art of record therefore does not appear to teach the method of claim 9 nor the system of claim 19, wherein updating the branch indicator comprises updating one or more indicators at one or more depths.
Claim 21 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-8, filed 7/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhao (2023, SPWLA 64th Annual Logging Symposium).
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 JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7339. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9am-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, 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.
/JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights