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 arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments introduce new 112 issues which are discussed below.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 5 and 26 are sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 of claims 5 and 16. Accordingly the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 6 and 27 are not sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 of claims 5 and 16. Accordingly the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 21-31 over art have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Applicant amended claims 1 and 21 to include an “from at least a third interface” without specifying a first or second interface anywhere in the claims. This renders the claims indefinite as the metes and bounds cannot be accurately determined from the language of the claims. For purposes of examination the Examiner is going to read the limitation “from at least three interfaces”.
Claims 2-9 and 22-31 depend from claims 1 and 21 respectively as are likewise indefinite for the same reasons as presented above.
Claims 6 and 27 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims recite “further computing travel times for leaked and reflected waves for a range of annular thicknesses and compressional wave velocities”. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or an additional computing of the travel times previously computed in the parent claim.
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) 1-4, 9, 21-25, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (2020/0341163) in view of Khadhraoui (WO 2020/072404) and Walker (WO 2021040746).
With respect to claim 1, Wang teaches transmitting an acoustic signal into at least part of a conduit string ([0036], lines 11-12; [0043], lines 5-6); measuring a return signal from at least part of the conduit string ([0036], lines 15-16; [0043], lines 7-8); analyzing the return signal ([0036], lines 19-21); computing travel times for selected wave modes for a range of annular thicknesses and compressional wave slownesses ([0061], lines 2-3; Fig 4: 416; [0095]); comparing the computed travel times with the analyzed return signal ([0064]-[0070]; Fig 4, steps 420 and 422); and plotting a semblance map of annular thicknesses as a function of compressional wave velocities ([0075], lines 15-16; Fig 4: 426). However, it does not teach the travel times specifically calculated for leaked and reflected waves; that slowness calculations are mathematically equivalent to velocity; and the travel times are computed for waves for the waves are reflected from at least 3 interfaces.
It is well known in the art that slowness and velocity have a reciprocal relationship; for example as defined in the Energy Glossary (https://glossary.slb.com/terms/s/slowness).
Khadhraoui teaches calculating travel times for leaked and reflected waves ([0066], lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Wang with the leaded and reflected wave travel time calculations of Khadhraoui since such a modification would have helped to identify the different onset arrivals.
Walker teaches the travel times are computed for waves for the waves are reflected from at least 3 interfaces ([0060]; [0071]; Fig 6). 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 Wang with the multiple interface reflections since such a modification would have provided a more accurate picture of the subsurface allowing for noise and unwanted reflections to be more accurately removed.
With respect to claim 22, Wang teaches a transmitter configured to transmit an acoustic signal into at least part of a conduit string ([0036], lines 10-12; [0043], lines 3-6); a receiver configured to measure a return signal from at least part of the conduit string ([0036], lines 15-16; [0043], lines 7-9); an information handling system configured to analyze the return signal ([0036], lines 19-21; [0041], lines 3-6); compute travel times for selected wave modes for a range of annular thicknesses and compressional wave slownesses ([0061], lines 2-3; Fig 4: 416; [0095]); compare the computed travel times with the analyzed return signal ([0064]-[0070]; Fig 4, steps 420 and 422); and plot a semblance map of annular thicknesses as a function of compressional wave velocities ([0075], lines 15-16; Fig 4: 426). However, it does not teach the travel times specifically calculated for leaked and reflected waves; that slowness calculations are mathematically equivalent to velocity; and the travel times are computed for waves for the waves are reflected from at least 3 interfaces.
It is well known in the art that slowness and velocity have a reciprocal relationship; for example as defined in the Energy Glossary (https://glossary.slb.com/terms/s/slowness).
Khadhraoui teaches calculating travel times for leaked and reflected waves ([0066], lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Wang with the leaded and reflected wave travel time calculations of Khadhraoui since such a modification would have helped to identify the different onset arrivals.
Walker teaches the travel times are computed for waves for the waves are reflected from at least 3 interfaces ([0060]; [0071]; Fig 6). 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 Wang with the multiple interface reflections since such a modification would have provided a more accurate picture of the subsurface allowing for noise and unwanted reflections to be more accurately removed.
With respect to claims 2 and 23, Wang teaches the acoustic signals are obtained from an acoustic logging tool in a pitch-catch (P-C) configuration ([0045], lines 2-5; Fig 2).
With respect to claims 3, 4, 21, 24, 25, and 31, Wang as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach the distance between a P-C transmitter and a P-C receiver is from about 6 inches to about 20 inches, from about 8.5 inches to about 15 inches, or from about 4 inches to about 30 inches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have the P-C transmitter and receivers separated by the required distance since it suggests distances “ranging from several inches to several feet” and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claims 9 and 30, Wang as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach repeating the creation for every depth and azimuth to create a velocity profile as a function of depth and azimuth in a logging operation.
Khadhraoui teaches repeating the creation for every depth and azimuth to create a velocity profile as a function of depth and azimuth in a logging operation ([00102]; Fig 19). 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 Wang to be performed for every depth and amplitude since such a modification would have allowed for an operator to more accurately assess the formations surrounding the borehole.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32-35 are allowed.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights