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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5 and 8-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3-5 and 8-10 recite “any one of,” which should be removed.
Claim 11 recites “any one of claims claim 1”; this should be corrected to read just “claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey (US 20160195634 A1) in view of Rabinovich (US 20130304384 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Frey discloses a method for making electromagnetic logging measurements in a section of a subterranean wellbore (¶6: the method includes "acquiring a plurality of full tensor voltage measurements while rotating [an electromagnetic] logging tool in the borehole"), the method comprising:
(a) rotating an electromagnetic logging tool in the section of the wellbore (see reference to ¶6 above), the electromagnetic logging tool including at least one transmitter spaced apart from at least one receiver (¶6: "the logging tool including at least first and second axially spaced transmitters and at least first and second axially spaced receivers"; See also Fig. 2A, where the transmitters (T1 and T2) and the receivers (R1 and R2) are spaced apart);
(b) causing the electromagnetic logging tool to make electromagnetic logging measurements while rotating in (a) (Again, from ¶6: the method includes "acquiring a plurality of full tensor voltage measurements while rotating the logging tool in the borehole");
(c) obtaining a curvature of the curved section of the wellbore (¶58: "during directional drilling operations, the drill string typically bends"; See Eq. 10 and discussion in ¶39: “tool bending may then be considered as a separate rotation about an arbitrary cross axial rotation axis, for example, as [in Eq. 10],” where
R
b
e
n
d
describes the curvature due to tool bending); and
(d) processing the electromagnetic measurements made in (b) to compute at least one property of a formation surrounding the wellbore (¶6: "causing a processor to process the plurality of full tensor voltage measurements to obtain a partially gain compensated full tensor quantity." ¶2: the full tensor, gain compensated propagation measurements can include phase shift and attenuation (resistivity) measurements.).
Frey does not explicitly disclose that the section of wellbore is curved, however as described in ¶58 the drill string typically bends “to accommodate the changing borehole direction”. It would have therefore been obvious to perform the method in a curved section of wellbore because such sections are common.
Frey also does not explicitly disclose that the processing step in (d) processes the electromagnetic measurements made in (b) in combination with the curvature obtained in (c) to compute the at least one property.
Rabinovich discloses a method “for estimating a parameter of interest of an earth formation involving alignment information between non-collocated oriented receivers and their corresponding non-collocated oriented transmitters” (Abstract). Rabinovich compensates for misalignment to get an estimate of the parameter of interest (Abstract). The misalignment may be due to curvature of a wellbore (¶34: “Since the drillstring 11 may bend within a borehole, transmitters 50, 51 and receivers 60, 61 that are disposed on the BHA 24 or otherwise along the drillstring 11 may undergo shifts in alignment at different positions within the borehole 12.” See also ¶2 which shows that misalignment can be due to bending of the tool while logging measurements.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Rabinovich with the invention of Frey by processing the electromagnetic measurements made in (b) in combination with the curvature obtained in (c) to compute the at least one property. This would ensure that misalignment between transmitter/receiver pairs are accounted for and do not result in incorrect assumptions about the at least one property.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites a system for performing the method of claim 1, and many limitations of claim 18 are found in claim 1 and rejected for the same reasons. Claim 18 also recites a drill string, that the transmitter and receiver are configured to make electromagnetic measurements while the drill string rotates, and that the system comprises a processor configured to perform the method.
Frey discloses these limitations (see at least ¶34 as referenced above in the rejection of claim 1, and ¶94).
Regarding claim 2, Frey in view of Rabinovich teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that axial antennae and transverse antennae are common (¶25: "Electromagnetic logging tools commonly use axial, transverse, and/or tilted antennas"). For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Frey in view of Rabinovich to cause the at least one of the transmitter and the receiver to comprise an axial antenna and a transverse antenna.
Regarding claim 3, Frey in view of Rabinovich teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that at least one of the transmitter and the receiver comprises a triaxial antenna arrangement (see ¶13 and Fig. 2B with triaxial transmitters and receivers).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 4 would have been obvious for the same reasons as given in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Frey in view of Rabinovich teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Frey further teaches that (b) comprises:
firing the transmitter by applying a time varying electrical current to a transmitting antenna in the transmitter (¶29: "As is known to those of ordinary skill in the art, a time varying electric current (an alternating current) in a transmitting antenna produces a corresponding time varying magnetic field in the local environment (e.g., the tool collar and the formation). The magnetic field in turn induces electrical currents (eddy currents) in the conductive formation. These eddy currents further produce secondary magnetic fields which may produce a voltage response in a receiving antenna. The measured voltage in the receiving antennae can be processed, as is known to those of ordinary skill in the art, to obtain one or more properties of the formation." It is implied that this is the method used in Frey.); and
measuring a voltage response in a receiving antenna in the receiver, the voltage response induced by the current applied to the transmitting antenna (the “voltage response in a receiving antenna” in ¶29 above).
Frey does not explicitly disclose measuring a toolface angle at a time of said transmitter firing; and continuously repeating said firing, said measuring a voltage response, and said measuring a toolface to obtain a plurality of measured voltages at a corresponding plurality of toolface angles.
However, Frey does teach that voltage measurements are functions of toolface (¶74 and the surrounding math describes obtaining the voltage measured for a particular transmitter/receiver pair (see ¶72). The voltage is approximated as the first terms of a harmonic expansion in sines and cosines; ¶74 says that "The harmonic terms may be obtained by fitting the measured voltages during rotation (as a function of tool face angle) to Equation 34"). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Frey in view of Rabinovich to measure tool face angle when the transmitter fires because voltage is a function of the tool face angle. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to continuously repeating said firing, said measuring a voltage response, and said measuring a toolface to obtain a plurality of measured voltages at a corresponding plurality of toolface angles in order to measure parameters of the formation at different locations while drilling through the formation.
Regarding claim 6, Frey in view of Rabinovich teaches the limitations of claim 5, and further teaches that (b) further comprises fitting the plurality of measured voltages to a harmonic equation to obtain a plurality of harmonic voltage coefficients (Frey, ¶5: "The voltage measurements may be fit to a harmonic expression to obtain harmonic coefficients." Note in the context of the arguments for rejecting claim 5 that multiple sets of harmonic coefficients would be obtained).
Regarding claim 7, Frey in view of Rabinovich teaches the limitations of claim 5, and further teaches that the harmonic voltage coefficients comprise DC, first order, and second order coefficients (Eq. 34 and discussion in ¶74 show that the measured transmitter/receiver voltage is fit to a harmonic expansion with a DC, first order, and second order coefficients (harmonics).).
Regarding claim 10, Frey in view of Rabinovich teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that the at least one property of the formation comprises at least one of a resistivity (Frey, ¶2: the full tensor, gain compensated propagation measurements can include phase shift and attenuation (resistivity) measurements), a vertical resistivity, a horizontal resistivity (Frey, ¶8: "The measurements are sensitive to vertical and horizontal formation resistivity), a distance to a boundary layer (Frey, ¶8: “The full tensor measurements may therefore be utilized in an inversion to obtain the vertical and horizontal resistivity of local and remote beds, as well as the distance and dip angle to the boundary”), or thicknesses of one or more formation layers.
Regarding claim 11, Frey in view of Rabinovich teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that (d) further comprises processing the electromagnetic measurements made in (b) in combination with the curvature obtained in (c) via inverting a forward model to compute the at least one property (¶8: "The full tensor measurements may therefore be utilized in an inversion to obtain the vertical and horizontal resistivity of local and remote beds, as well as the distance and dip angle to the boundary." In the context of the limitations of claim 1, the curvature would be processed along with the measurements because they affect how the measurements are interpreted).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey (US 20160195634 A1) in view of Rabinovich (US 20130304384 A1), and further in view of Sugiura (US 20160160628 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Frey in view of Rabinovich teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 8.
Sugiura discloses a method for controlling a curvature of a subterranean wellbore while drilling in a closed loop (Abstract), and teaches that BHAs may include rotary steerable tools which can control drilling directions (¶18). These BHAs can drill a desired curvature by alternating a bias and neutral phase at a predetermined ratio (¶19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sugiura with the invention of Frey in view of Rabinovich by obtaining the curvature from a rotary steerable tool since such tools exist and can provide a probable (intended) curvature.
Regarding claim 9, Frey in view of Rabinovich teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 9.
Sugiura discloses a method for controlling a curvature of a subterranean wellbore while drilling in a closed loop (Abstract), and teaches that spaced attitude measurements can be acquired and used to measure curvature while drilling (see Fig. 4B, 110-114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sugiura with the invention of Frey in view of Rabinovich by computing the curvature from first and second spaced apart wellbore attitude measurements. Doing so would enable one to use a known method to measure an actual rate of curvature.
Claims 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey (US 20160195634 A1) in view of Rabinovich (US 20130304384 A1), and further in view of Miles (US 20170160425 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Frey in view of Rabinovich teaches the limitations of claim 11. While Frey does not go into detail, Frey does disclose that an inversion of a formation model is used to obtain the parameters (see ¶94 of Frey: “the [full tensor gain compensated] quantity may be utilized in an inversion process (along with a formation model) to obtain various formation parameters”).
The basic steps of inverting a forward model are well-known. An initial estimate of a model is given; the model is used to compute predicted measurements; the difference between predicted and actual measurements is computed; this difference is used to adjust the model; and the process is repeated until the difference is under a threshold.
Miles discloses a method for determining at least one property of a geological formation using a forward model (Abstract) and iterations of an inversion process (¶12). Miles details the above steps and attests to their popularity (see ¶73 and elements 107, 109, 111, and 113 of Figs. 1A-1B). In detail, Miles discloses estimating a value of at least one property (Fig. 1A step 107; the “forward model” describes one or more properties of a formation; ¶10: “The forward model is used to interpret or infer at least one property of the geological formation including bulk density of the geological formation.”);
processing the value of the at least one property in the forward model to compute modeled electromagnetic logging measurements (Fig. 1A step 107, the synthetic detector measurements; see also ¶10: “The neutron-induced gamma-ray emission can result from inelastic interaction of neutrons with the geological formation” i.e. the measurements are due to the properties of the formation);
comparing the modeled logging measurements with the logging measurements to obtain a difference (Fig. 1A, step 109); and
adjusting the value of the at least one property (Fig. 1B, step 111); and
repeating said processing the value, said comparing, and said adjusting until the difference is less than a threshold (Fig. 1B, step 113; ¶73: convergence is reached when the synthetic and actual detector measurements are “within a predefined tolerance constraint”).
In context of Frey in view of Rabinovich, the formation model properties are encoded in the transfer impedance tensor
Z
(see ¶37 and Eq. 9 of Frey), and the predicted and actual measurements would be receiver voltage
V
(see at least Eq. 6 of Frey).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Miles with the invention of Frey in view of Rabinovich by causing (d) to further comprise:
estimating a value of the at least one property (via the coupling tensor
Z
described in at least Eq. 9 of Frey);
processing the value of the at least one property and the curvature obtained in (c) (in context of Frey in view of Rabinovich, processing the curvature would be important because curvature affects how measurements should be interpreted) in the forward model to compute modeled electromagnetic logging measurements (Frey, at least Eqs. 6, 7, and 12 describe using
Z
to compute voltage, and in the context of implementing an inversion process the voltages would be modeled; also note that Frey considers addressing curvature by Eq. 12 in light of Eq. 10 applying a rotation matrix
R
b
e
n
d
to transmitter/receiver moment transformation matrices; see rejection of claims 13 and 20 below);
comparing the modeled logging measurements with the logging measurements made in (b) to obtain a difference (comparing measured and computed
V
); and
adjusting the value of the at least one property; and
repeating said processing the value, said comparing, and said adjusting until the difference is less than a threshold.
Doing so would implement a known method of inversion.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations of claim 19 are found in claim 12 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Frey in view of Rabinovich and Miles teaches the limitations of claims 12 and 19, respectively. Furthermore, in the context of the inversion, the formation properties are encoded in
Z
, the transfer impedance tensor (see Frey, ¶37 and Eq. 9, and rejection of claims 12 and 19), which is used to relate the transmitter currents to the measured receiver voltages (see Eq. 6; the more general form Eq. 7 and ¶35 stating that “the transmitter currents I are included in the generalized transmitter gains [
G
T
]”; and the even more general form Eq. 12, which accounts for a need to transform between antenna moment reference frames to the standard coordinate frame (¶36: elements of
m
T
and
m
R
represent projections of unit vectors for the transmitter/receiver moments onto the standard coordinate frame; Eq. 10 and ¶39 describe applying axial (e.g.
R
Z
α
) and bending (e.g.
R
b
e
n
d
) rotation matrices to
m
T
and
m
R
to account for BHA rotation and bending)).
Therefore, Frey in view of Rabinovich and Miles teaches that processing the value comprises:
processing the value of the at least one property to compute a coupling tensor (
Z
; see rejection of claims 12 and 19);
processing the curvature and the coupling tensor to rotate the coupling tensor (as argued above, Eq. 12 in light of the transformations to
m
T
and
m
R
in Eq. 10 account for curvature. Mathematically this can be thought of as rotating the coupling tensor; applying Eq. 10 to Eq. 12:
V
=
G
T
m
'
T
t
Z
m
R
'
G
R
=
G
T
m
T
t
R
T
t
Z
R
R
m
R
G
R
=
G
T
m
T
t
Z
'
m
R
G
R
where
Z
'
is a rotated coupling tensor); and
processing said rotated coupling tensor to compute the modeled electromagnetic logging measurements (again, the result would be a modeled
V
; see rejection of claims 12 and 19).
Regarding claim 14, Frey in view of Rabinovich and Miles teaches the limitations of claim 13, and further teaches that said processing the curvature and the coupling tensor to rotate the coupling tensor further comprises:
processing the curvature to obtain a bending angle and a bending axis (Frey describes tool bending in ¶39 as "a separate rotation about an arbitrary cross axial rotation axis," and depicts this in Fig. 3. See also
R
b
e
n
d
in Eq. 10, which encodes curvature from BHA bending. Since
R
b
e
n
d
is a 3D Euclidean rotation matrix (i.e.,
R
b
e
n
d
∈
S
O
(
3
)
), it is describable as a rotation by an angle about some axis.); and
processing the bending angle, the bending axis, and the coupling tensor to rotate the coupling tensor (obtaining
Z
'
; see rejection of claims 13 and 19).
Regarding claim 15, Frey in view of Rabinovich and Miles teaches the limitations of claim 13, and further teaches processing the curvature and the coupling tensor to rotate the coupling tensor further comprises computing new rotation axes for the transmitter and the receiver (See discussion for rejection of claims 13 and 20;
R
T
and
R
R
are both products of bending and BHA axial rotation matrices and can be considered rotation matrices about new, local rotation axes for the transmitter and receiver); and processing said rotated coupling tensor further comprises rotating the coupling tensor about the new axes (
Z
is processed with
R
T
and
R
R
to get
Z
'
; see rejection of claims 13 and 20).
Regarding claim 16, Frey in view of Rabinovich and Miles teaches the limitations of claim 15. Furthermore, Frey teaches expressing voltage in a harmonic form with DC, first-order, and second-order terms (see Eq. 34). Frey teaches that the harmonic term coefficients may for example encode contributions from parallel and perpendicular components of a transmitter antenna (see ¶74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Frey with the invention of Frey in view of Rabinovich and Miles by causing the processing of said rotated coupling tensor to further comprise computing modeled harmonic voltage coefficients. This would enable one to obtain predictions for harmonic voltage coefficients, which can be compared to measured coefficients to gain information about how well predicted and actual couplings agree between for example parallel and perpendicular components of a transmitter antenna with a receiver antenna.
Regarding claim 17, Frey in view of Rabinovich and Miles teaches the limitations of claim 16, and from the discussion in the rejection of claim 16 it would have been obvious to cause said comparing to comprise comparing the modeled harmonic voltage coefficients with measured harmonic voltage coefficients obtained in (b) (see rejection of claim 16).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights