Final Rejection
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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 02/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's argument that 02/05/2026 is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Steinsiek is directed to a system for estimating a property of a region of interest includes an acoustic measurement device including a transmitter configured to emit an acoustic signal having at least one selected frequency configured to penetrate a surface of a borehole in an earth formation and produce internal diffuse backscatter from earth formation material behind the surface and within the region of interest, and a receiver configured to detect return signals from the region of interest and generate return signal data and Anay is directed to an acoustic emission (AE) monitoring system/method to investigate micro-crack formation and coalescence in cement paste specimens. Both prior art use an acoustic measurement device to measure, image, estimate and determine data about cement and/or rock formation which is advantageous to one of ordinary skill in the art because it would lead to a better understanding of a formation which is of interest for example to drill into a formation to find desired hydrocarbon and the before mentioned micro-crack formations investigation could be useful for example to find how porous a formation is which would identify how much hydrocarbon is present. Thus, both Steinsiek and Anay are analogous art to the instant invention to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/968.427 in view of Anay (“Identification of damage mechanisms in cement paste based on acoustic emission”, all citations provided from machine translation attached). Every limitation present in the instant application is present and claimed in claim 1 of the copending application except for the limitation of “performing a component analysis based at least in part on the entropy spectra to select a subset of the entropy spectra”, however Anay teaches this limitation (See Pages 286-287, 293-295, Table 2, Figs.1-2, 12-17 of Anay). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to incorporate performing a component analysis based at least in part on the entropy spectra to select a subset of the entropy spectra in order to investigate micro-crack formations in the cement and evaluate damage of the concrete.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 17/968.427 in view of Anay (“Identification of damage mechanisms in cement paste based on acoustic emission”, all citations provided from machine translation attached). Every limitation present in the instant application is present and claimed in claim 11 of the copending application except for the limitation of “perform a component analysis based at least in part on the entropy spectra to select a subset of the entropy spectra”, however Anay teaches this limitation (See Pages 286-287, 293-295, Table 2, Figs.1-2, 12-17 of Anay). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to incorporate to perform a component analysis based at least in part on the entropy spectra to select a subset of the entropy spectra in order to investigate micro-crack formations in the cement and evaluate damage of the concrete.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinsiek (US 20210140305 A1) in view of Anay (“Identification of damage mechanisms in cement paste based on acoustic emission”, all citations provided from machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Steinsiek teaches a well inspection method, comprising: receiving signals (30) from a casing structure (14) using a well inspection tool (16). (Paragraphs 4, 19, 23-28, Figs.1, 10)
Steinsiek also teaches performing, using at least one processor (32) associated with the well inspection tool (16), a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) on the signals to generate spectrogram data (power spectrum as a function of frequency (f) is calculated for each segment s1 and s2 using a Fourier transform). (Paragraphs 26-27, 46-47, 88, Claims 7, 17, Figs.1, 7)
Steinsiek also teaches determining entropy spectra from the spectrogram data. (Paragraphs 53-57, Fig.10)
Steinsiek also teaches determining casing loadings or cement bonding associated with the casing structure based at least in part on the entropy spectra. (Paragraphs 53-57, 63-65, Claims 7, 17, Fig.10)
Steinsiek does not explicitly teach performing a component analysis based at least in part on the entropy spectra to select a subset of the entropy spectra and determining casing loadings or cement bonding associated with the casing structure based at least in part on the subset of the entropy spectra.
Anay teaches performing a component analysis based at least in part on the entropy spectra to select a subset of the entropy spectra and determining casing loadings or cement bonding associated with the casing structure based at least in part on the subset of the entropy spectra. (Pages 286-287, 293-295, Table 2, Figs.1-2, 12-17)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Steinsiek to incorporate performing a component analysis based at least in part on the entropy spectra to select a subset of the entropy spectra and determining casing loadings or cement bonding associated with the casing structure based at least in part on the subset of the entropy spectra in order to investigate micro-crack formations in the cement and evaluate damage of the concrete.
Regarding claim 2, Steinsiek teaches determining scores of the feature components of the entropy spectra, wherein scores are associated with a depth and a sector within a well where the signals are received. (Paragraphs 46, 53-57, 27-28, Claims 7, 17)
Steinsiek also teaches selecting individual ones of the scores for which underlying ones of the feature components are to be associated together to be within a dataset. (Paragraphs 46, 53-57, 27-28)
Steinsiek does not explicitly teach determining a covariance matrix from the entropy spectra and performing the component analysis to extract feature components from the entropy spectra and performing clustering within the dataset to identify at least a cluster for the subset of the feature components, the cluster being associated with the casing loadings or cement bonding of the casing structure.
Anay teaches determining a covariance matrix from the entropy spectra and performing the component analysis to extract feature components from the entropy spectra and performing clustering within the dataset to identify at least a cluster for the subset of the feature components, the cluster being associated with the casing loadings or cement bonding of the casing structure. (Pages 293-295, Figs.12-17)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Steinsiek to incorporate determining a covariance matrix from the entropy spectra and performing the component analysis to extract feature components from the entropy spectra and performing clustering within the dataset to identify at least a cluster for the subset of the feature components, the cluster being associated with the casing loadings or cement bonding of the casing structure in order to investigate micro-crack formations in the cement and evaluate damage of the concrete.
Regarding claim 3, Steinsiek teaches wherein the feature components comprise one or more of bonding conditions of different actual or test casing or of different entropy spectra of different sectors that are at one or more depths in an actual or test well. (Paragraphs 46, 53-57, Claims 7, 17)
Regarding claim 4, Steinsiek does not explicitly teach determining the covariance matrix from a first part of the entropy spectra that is sampled from the entropy spectra; and validating the first part of the entropy spectra with a second part of the entropy spectra based in part on the feature components.
Anay teaches determining the covariance matrix from a first part of the entropy spectra that is sampled from the entropy spectra; and validating the first part of the entropy spectra with a second part of the entropy spectra based in part on the feature components. (Pages 293-295, Figs.12-17)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Steinsiek to incorporate determining the covariance matrix from a first part of the entropy spectra that is sampled from the entropy spectra; and validating the first part of the entropy spectra with a second part of the entropy spectra based in part on the feature components in order to investigate micro-crack formations in the cement and evaluate damage of the concrete.
Regarding claim 5, Steinsiek teaches providing the well inspection tool as part of a production tubing, the production tubing being internally within the casing structure, wherein the casing loadings or cement bonding are associated with cement located externally relative to the casing structure. (Paragraphs 19, 103, Fig.1)
Regarding claim 6, Steinsiek teaches providing the well inspection tool internally within the casing structure, wherein the casing loadings or cement bonding are associated with cement located externally relative to the casing structure. (Paragraphs 22, 65, 67, Fig.1)
Regarding claim 7, Steinsiek teaches enabling the well inspection tool to comprise a transmitter and at least one receiver in a pitch-catch or pulse-echo configuration; transmitting, using the transmitter, a test signal from different circumferential positions of the well inspection tool towards walls of the casing structure; and receiving, using the at least one receiver, the signals that are associated with the test 37 signal, wherein the signals travel in a perpendicular direction relative to an axis of the casing structure or travel along an axial direction relative to the axis of the casing structure. (Paragraphs 23-24, Fig.1)
Regarding claim 8, Steinsiek teaches determining a power spectrum for at least one of the signals; determining a sum of the power spectrum; normalizing the power spectrum using the sum of the power spectrum; and determining the entropy spectra based in part on a natural logarithm of the normalized power spectrum. (Paragraphs 55-57)
Regarding claim 9, Steinsiek teaches wherein the casing loadings comprise one of a flow path condition or different material loadings. (Paragraphs 19, 22, 28-29, Fig.1)
Regarding claim 10, Steinsiek teaches providing the well inspection tool internally within a production tubing, the production tubing being internally within the casing structure, wherein a media is provided within the production tubing and within an annular space of the casing structure and the production tubing. (Paragraphs 22, 28-30, 53, 65, 103, Fig.1)
Regarding claim 11, Steinsiek teaches a system for well inspection, comprising: a transmitter (28) of a well inspection tool (16) to transmit a test signal into a casing structure (14). (Paragraphs 19-23, Figs.1, 10)
Steinsiek also teaches one or more receivers (30) of the well inspection tool (16) to receive signals from the casing structure (14) to the well inspection tool. (Paragraphs 4, 19, 23-28, Figs.1, 10)
Steinsiek also teaches at least one processor (32) and memory comprising instructions that when executed by the at least one processor enable the system to: perform a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) on the signals to generate spectrogram data. (Paragraphs 26-27, 46-47, 88, Claims 7, 17, Figs.1, 7)
Steinsiek also teaches to determine entropy spectra from the spectrogram data. (Paragraphs 53-57, Fig.10)
Steinsiek also teaches to determine casing loadings or cement bonding associated with the casing structure based at least in part on the entropy spectra. (Paragraphs 53-57, 63-65, Claims 7, 17, Fig.10)
Steinsiek does not explicitly teach to perform a component analysis based at least in part on the entropy spectra to select a subset of the entropy spectra and to determine casing loadings or cement bonding associated with the casing structure based at least in part on the subset of the entropy spectra.
Anay teaches to perform a component analysis based at least in part on the entropy spectra to select a subset of the entropy spectra and to determine casing loadings or cement bonding associated with the casing structure based at least in part on the subset of the entropy spectra. (Pages 286-287, 293-295, Table 2, Figs.1-2, 12-17)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Steinsiek to incorporate to perform a component analysis based at least in part on the entropy spectra to select a subset of the entropy spectra and to determine casing loadings or cement bonding associated with the casing structure based at least in part on the subset of the entropy spectra in order to investigate micro-crack formations in the cement and evaluate damage of the concrete.
Regarding claim 12, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 2. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 12, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 3. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 13, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 4. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 14, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 5. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 15, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 6. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 16, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, Steinsiek teaches wherein the well inspection tool comprises the transmitter and the one or more receivers in a pitch-catch or pulse-echo configuration. (Paragraphs 23-24, Fig.1)
Regarding claim 18, Steinsiek teaches wherein the test signal is transmitted from different circumferential positions of the well inspection tool towards walls of the casing structure, and wherein the signals received are associated with the test signal, wherein the signals travel in a perpendicular direction relative to an axis of the casing structure or travel along an axial direction relative to the axis of the casing structure. (Paragraphs 24-27, 33-34, Fig.1)
Regarding claim 19, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 8. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 19, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 10. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 20, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 10.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights