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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/27/2026 has been entered.
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 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chace (US 2012/0075953 A1; ids) and Li (US 2022/0049600 Al; ids).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Chace teaches a method and a system comprising:
disposing a bottom hole assembly (BHA) into a wellbore at a depth, wherein the BHA comprises [[fig. 4] dispose acoustic tool in borehole and generate acoustic data #51]:
at least one transmitter configured to transmit an acoustic waveform into at least a casing; and [[abstract] emitting at least one acoustic signal into the borehole via an acoustic source and detecting a return acoustic signal via an acoustic sensor, the borehole including a casing and a casing support material disposed between the casing and a borehole wall]
at least one receiver configured to record one or more casing waveforms that originate from within or behind the casing [[0027] the at least one detector 26 is configured as one or more acoustic receivers 40, 42 configured to detect reflected acoustic waves. In the embodiment shown in FIG 3 two detectors 40, 42 are illustrated. However, any number of detectors 40 may be positioned at various locations in or on the tool 37. For example, an array of detectors may be positioned at multiple locations along the length of the tool and/or at multiple angular locations to affect a two-dimensional or three-dimensional data set.];
calculate at least two or more downhole parameters with the one or more casing waveforms [[0035] in the second stage 52, the acoustic return signals are analyzed to determine parameters as well as the condition of the cement and/or the cement/casing bond. This analysis may include recording the return signals over time and correlating them to depth as well as processing the associated data to yield a log ( e.g., a CBL) or other measurement record. Examples of useful data include the time and amplitude of both emitted and recorded waves, signal amplitude and time lag values. In addition, wave attenuation as the wave propagates through the casing 18 and the cement 20 may be recorded];
calculating a [correlation] between the at least two or more downhole parameters, wherein a first parameter from the at least two or more downhole parameters is a magnitude and a second parameter from the at least two or more downhole parameters is an attenuation [[prior art claim 4] calculating at least one of an amplitude and an attenuation of the return acoustic signal and correlating the at least one of the amplitude and the attenuation to a location in the borehole.; [prior art claim 14] generating an acoustic log that includes a plurality of return signal amplitudes, each return signal amplitude correlated with a respective location; [[0006] comparing at least one of an amplitude and an attenuation of each return signal amplitude to a reference value]; and
forming a cement bond log based at least in part on the [correlation] [[0035] analysis may include recording the return signals over time and correlating them to depth as well as processing the associated data to yield a log ( e.g., a CBL)].
Chace does not explicitly teach and yet Li teaches calculating a correlation coefficient [[0037] cross-correlation algorithm is applied to the return signal information in the frequency domain and the reference frequency domain return signal information to provide a cross-correlation coefficient indicative of how close the return signal information in the frequency domain is to the reference frequency domain return signal information. In one example, the reference information is for a free-standing tubular with no bonding. Hence, a cross-correlation coefficient indicating a high degree of correlation will characterize the actual tubular as being free standing with no bonds or bonding. Various cross-correlation algorithms may be used. As with the first method, a threshold value for the cross-correlation coefficient may be used to determine whether a bond is satisfactory or not.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the correlation as taught by Chace, with the correlation coefficient as taught by Li because an index can be used to characterize whether or not a casing bond is satisfactory or unsatisfactory (Li) [[0034][0037]].
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Chace 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 [[0006] comparing at least one of an amplitude and an attenuation of each return signal amplitude to a reference value].
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chace (US 2012/0075953 A1; ids) and Li (US 2022/0049600 Al; ids) as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Izuhara (US 2017 /0226844 A1; ids).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Chace does not explicitly teach and yet Izuhara 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 [[0016] FIGS. llAand llB are graphical illustration showing attenuations in a selected time window in FIG. llA and apparent attenuation based on a linear fitting in FIG. llB, according to an embodiment of the disclosure; [0046] For the conversion from amplitude/attenuation to bond indices, a linear model between casing amplitude/attenuation and the bond index may be used ( as represented by dashed lines 58 in FIGS. lA and lB). Or, a summation model of casing and tool collar arrivals may be used (as represented by solid lines 60 in FIGS. lA and lB and considering the model represented in FIG. 2).].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the correlation as taught by Chace, with linear fitting and summation model as taught by Izuhara so that amplitudes and/or attenuations so as to form an index may be used to evaluate casing bond quality (Izuhara) [[abstract]].
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant acknowledges receipt of the Final Office Action dated January 26, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0075953 to Chace (Chace) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0049600 to Li (Li). Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chace and Li, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0226844 to Izuhara (Izuhara). The Office Action is objecting to claims 4-10 and 14-20 as being dependent upon a rejection base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitation of the base claim and any intervening claims.
By this Response claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Applicant believes the claims presented in this Response are allowable over the art of record and respectfully requests reconsideration and allowance of all claims.
I. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
A. Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 are patentable over Chace and Li.
The Office Action has rejected claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chace and Li. Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references do not provide a prima facie case of obviousness for the rejected claims.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims from which claims 2 and 12 depend. By this response, independent claims 1 and 11 have been amended to recite, "calculating a correlation coefficient between the at least two or more downhole parameters, wherein a first parameter from the at least two or more downhole parameters is a magnitude and a second parameter from the at least two or more downhole parameters is an attenuation." Applicant asserts that this correlation is between at least magnitude and an attenuation, whereas the Chace's correlation is between a measurement and a location. To illustrate Chace recites, "each return signal amplitude correlated with a respective location." Chace, para. [0006]. As such Chace's correlation between a measurement is far different from a correlation between at least magnitude and an attenuation. Moreover, Li does not teach what is not taught by Chace. Thus, Chace and Li do not teach each and every limitation of amended independent claims 1 and 11.
Applicant asserts that independent claims 1, 11, and their corresponding dependent claims are allowable. Applicant therefore requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner disagrees because, in Chace, prior art claim 4 explains that the method of claim 3, wherein analyzing the return acoustic signal includes calculating at least one of an amplitude and an attenuation of the return acoustic signal and correlating the at least one of the amplitude and the attenuation to a location in the borehole. Similarly, Chace further explains that the acoustic return signals are analyzed to determine parameters as well as the condition of the cement and/or the cement/casing bond. This analysis may include recording the return signals over time and correlating them to depth as well as processing the associated data to yield a log ( e.g., a CBL) or other measurement record. Examples of useful data include the time and amplitude of both emitted and recorded waves, signal amplitude and time lag values [[0035]].
Conclusion
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