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 received 2 June 2026 have been considered. Claims 1-10, 12-13, 16-22 are pending. Claims 11 and 14-15 have been canceled. Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 16-20 have been amended. Claims 21-22 are new.
Applicant’s efforts to amend the claims to address claim objections are satisfactory; however, the amendments introduce new issues. See claim objections below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered. Applicant argues that the prior art of record would not have rendered obvious the amended claim limitations. However, new grounds of rejection are given in light of the amendments. See 103 rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claims 18, 19, and 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 should be amended to read “…drilling operations in a curved section…”.
Claim 19 should be amended to read “…iteratively repeat…”.
Claims 21 and 22 should be amended to read “…wherein computing the modeled electromagnetic logging measurements includes computing the modeled voltage”.
Claims 21 and 22 recite that the superscript ‘t’ for each of the matrices means that the matrix is inverted, however the superscript means “transpose” (see also end of ¶43 of Applicant’s specification), therefore all references to “an inverted” should be replaced with “a transposed”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13, 16-17, and 21-22 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.
Claim 13 recites: “wherein the forward model computes the modeled electromagnetic logging measurements by: computing a coupling tensor using the modeled electromagnetic logging measurements.” The examiner is unsure whether Applicant intends to recite this limitation. As the examiner understands from the specification, the forward model does not use the modeled electromagnetic logging measurements to compute the coupling tensor (see e.g. ¶60 where the coupling tensor is processed to compute the modeled electromagnetic logging measurements, not the other way around). Rather, this would be part of each iteration of the inversion modeling process, whereby a comparison between the forward model’s output (i.e. the modeled electromagnetic logging measurements) and the actual measurements is used to inform a new computation of the coupling tensor. This is different from asserting that the forward model computes the coupling tensor using the modeled electromagnetic logging measurements, unless one wishes to redefine the forward model to include the iterative inversion process. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that the above quote from claim 13 should be replaced with: “further comprising: computing a coupling tensor using the modeled electromagnetic logging measurements.”
Claims 16-17 depend from claim 13, therefore they inherit the same issues and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 21 and 22 recite that
R
T
θ
t
and
R
R
θ
t
describe bending about “the bending axis” by angle
θ
, where “the bending axis” refers to the axis about which the electromagnetic logging tool bends in the curved section of the wellbore. However, these matrices describe rotation by
θ
about the location rotation axis of the drillstring at the transmitter and receiver, respectively (see Eq. 8 and ¶44 of Applicant’s specification, indicating that these matrices describe BHA rotation; see also ¶50 and Eq. 14, where
R
T
θ
and
R
R
θ
describe BHA rotation after bending about the bend axis is accounted for). For examination purposes it will be assumed that the claim language following “where
V
is the modeled voltage” in both claims 21 and 22 should be replaced with:
m
T
t
is a transpose unit vector matrix of the transmitter,
R
T
b
e
n
d
t
is a transpose bending rotation matrix of the transmitter using the transmitter bending angle,
R
T
θ
t
is a transpose transmitter rotation matrix for the transmitter about a local rotation axis of the electromagnetic logging tool at the transmitter
θ
,
R
R
θ
is a receiver rotation matrix for the receiver about a local rotation axis of the electromagnetic logging tool at the receiver
θ
,
R
R
b
e
n
d
is a receiver bending rotation matrix of the receiver using the receiver bending angle, and
m
R
is a unit vector matrix of the receiver.
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, 12-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey (US 20160195634 A1) in view of Miles (US 20170160425 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Frey discloses a method comprising:
rotating an electromagnetic logging tool in a curved section of a wellbore extending through a formation (Abstract: “An electromagnetic logging tool including at least first and second axially spaced transmitters and at least first and second axially spaced receivers is rotated in a subterranean borehole”; as for the section being curved, see ¶58: “during directional drilling operations, the drill string typically bends to accommodate the changing borehole direction”), the electromagnetic logging tool including a transmitter spaced apart from a receiver (see Abstract referenced above);
causing the electromagnetic logging tool to make electromagnetic logging measurements while rotating the electromagnetic logging tool, the electromagnetic logging measurements including a measured voltage between the transmitter and the receiver (Abstract: “A plurality of voltage measurements are acquired while rotating”; that the voltage is between the transmitter and receiver, see ¶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.”);
obtaining a curvature of the curved section of the wellbore (Fig. 3 depicts drillstring bending; ¶39 describes, in relation to Fig. 3, how bending “may rotate the transmitter and receiver”, and is accounted for by applying rotation matrices
R
b
e
n
d
to
m
R
and
R
T
b
e
n
d
to
m
T
. Here
m
R
and
m
T
represent a change of basis from the reference frame defined by the receiver and transmitter magnetic moments to the global reference frame (see ¶36 and top of ¶39). Since bending due to drillstring curvature is accounted for in measurements, it must be obtained);
identifying a receiver bending angle and a transmitter bending angle (see ¶39 and Eq. 10,
R
b
e
n
d
and
R
T
b
e
n
d
. These matrices
R
b
e
n
d
and
R
T
b
e
n
d
represent bending by some angle about the bending axis for the receiver and the transmitter, respectively, and therefore require a step of identifying receiver and transmitter bending angles); and
generating an estimated formation property value of at least one property of the formation (¶8: “The [full tensor gain compensated] measurements are sensitive to vertical and horizontal formation resistivity (anisotropy) as well the presence of a remote bed boundary at all dip angles. 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.”).
While Frey does not explicitly recite identifying a bending plane and a bending axis, the bending axis located at a midpoint between the transmitter and the receiver and resulting in a bending angle between the transmitter and the receiver at the bending axis, Frey does depict such when discussing accounting for rotation (see Fig. 3, which is referred to at least in ¶39 as referenced above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Frey to do so using the curvature. Since all 3D rotations can be calculated as a rotation in a plane about some axis by some angle, doing so would be a natural step in accounting for the curvature using rotation matrices
R
b
e
n
d
and
R
T
b
e
n
d
.
Frey does not explicitly recite identifying the receiver and transmitter bending angles using the bending axis and the bending angle, however it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to do so in light of the above teachings (consider also that the bending angle between the transmitter and the receiver is related to the difference between the bending angle of the transmitter and the bending angle of the receiver with respect to a reference, thus it would be reasonable to use the bending angle between the transmitter and the receiver when determining the bending angles of the transmitter and receiver).
In light of the above, Frey still does not explicitly disclose:
inputting the receiver bending angle, the transmitter bending angle, and the estimated formation property value into a forward model to compute modeled electromagnetic logging measurements, the modeled electromagnetic logging measurements including a modeled voltage adjusted for the receiver bending angle and the transmitter bending angle;
generating a comparison between the measured voltage and the modeled voltage; and
responsive to the comparison being above a threshold, adjusting the estimated formation property value.
However, Frey does discuss using an inversion process to obtain an estimated formation property value (see above reference to ¶8). Frey also teaches a forward model which can be used to compute modeled electromagnetic logging measurements which takes as input the receiver bending matrix (encoding the receiver bending angle), the transmitter bending matrix (encoding the transmitter bending angle), and an estimated formation property value (¶42: Eq. 12 can be thought of as part of a forward model which models voltage measurements
V
by taking as input an estimated formation property value encoded in one or more of the elements of the transfer impedance tensor
Z
, encodes formation properties such as conductivity (see ¶37-38 and Eq. 9; note that conductivity is the reciprocal of resistivity and thus contains the same information), as well as transmitter and receiver moment matrices
m
T
and
m
R
. As discussed above with reference to ¶39 and Eq. 10, curvature of the wellbore along the drillstring can be accounted for in calculations by modifying
m
T
and
m
R
with rotation matrices
R
T
b
e
n
d
and
R
b
e
n
d
, respectively; these would be applied in Eq. 12 to account for drillstring curvature). The modeled electromagnetic logging measurements include a modeled voltage (
V
in Eq. 12) adjusted for the receiver bending angle and the transmitter bending angle (as shown above with reference to Eq. 10).
Frey does not teach how the inversion process works, however 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); 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 the context of Frey, the formation property values are encoded in
Z
and the predicted and actual measurements would be receiver voltage
V
(see above discussion of Frey’s forward model).
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 by:
inputting the receiver bending angle (either encoded in or to be encoded in
R
b
e
n
d
), the transmitter bending angle (either encoded in or to be encoded in
R
T
b
e
n
d
), and the estimated formation property value (encoded by one or more values in
Z
) into a forward model (a model that uses the form of Eq. 12, modified to account for e.g. tool bending as in Eq. 10) to compute modeled electromagnetic logging measurements (estimates for
V
), the modeled electromagnetic logging measurements including a modeled voltage adjusted for the receiver bending angle and the transmitter bending angle (in the above discussion, the rotation matrices
R
b
e
n
d
and
R
T
b
e
n
d
would be accounted for in the calculation of
V
);
generating a comparison between the measured voltage (the actual voltage measurements taken; described at least in Frey’s Abstract) and the modeled voltage; and
responsive to the comparison being above a threshold, adjusting the estimated formation property value (encoded by changing one or more values of
Z
).
Doing so would implement a known method of inversion to estimate properties of the formation.
Regarding claim 2, Frey in view of Miles teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that axial antennae and transverse antennae are common (Frey, ¶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 Miles to cause the at least one of the transmitter or the receiver to comprise an axial antenna and a transverse antenna.
Regarding claim 3, Frey in view of Miles teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that at least one of the transmitter or 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 Miles teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Frey further teaches that causing the electromagnetic logging tool to make the electromagnetic logging measurements 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, resulting in the measured voltage, the voltage response induced by the time varying electrical 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 firing the transmitter; and continuously repeating firing the transmitter, measuring the voltage response, and measuring the toolface angle to obtain a plurality of voltage responses 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". Also consider that the teaching from ¶31 that “In general the earth is anisotropic such that its electrical properties may be expressed as a tensor.” From this it follows that the voltage response measured by a given receiver will generally be a function of rotation angle in the formation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Frey in view of Miles 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 repeat firing the transmitter, measuring the voltage response, and measuring the toolface angle to obtain a plurality of voltage responses 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 Miles teaches the limitations of claim 5, and further teaches that causing the electromagnetic logging tool to make the electromagnetic logging measurements further comprises fitting the plurality of voltage responses 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 Miles 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 Miles teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that the at least one property of the formation (encoded by one or more values in
Z
) comprises at least one of a resistivity (see below), a vertical resistivity (Eq. 9 and ¶38:
Z
is a function of
σ
v
; conductivity is the reciprocal of resistivity and contains the same information), a horizontal resistivity (Eq. 9 and ¶38:
Z
is a function of
σ
h
; conductivity is the reciprocal of resistivity and contains the same information), a distance to a boundary layer (Eq. 9 and ¶38:
Z
is a function of
L
which represents the distance to a remote bed), or thicknesses of one or more formation layers (Eq. 9 and ¶38:
Z
is a function of bed thickness).
Regarding claim 12, Frey in view of Miles teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, in view of the process described in claim 1, 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 by, responsive to adjusting the estimated formation property value, iteratively repeating inputting the receiver bending angle, the transmitter bending angle, and the estimated formation property value to the forward model, generating the comparison, and adjusting the estimated formation property value until the comparison is less than the threshold. Doing so would implement a known method of inversion to arrive at an estimation of the formation property value that is assumed to be an accurate representation of the actual formation (See rejection of claim 1 referring to Miles, Fig. 1B, step 113; ¶73: convergence is reached when the synthetic and actual detector measurements are “within a predefined tolerance constraint”).
Regarding claim 13, Frey in view of Miles teaches the limitations of claim 12, and further teaches computing a coupling tensor (
Z
) using the modeled electromagnetic logging measurements (in each iteration,
Z
is computed using the information from comparing the modeled
V
with the actual
V
); processing the curvature and the coupling tensor to rotate the coupling tensor according to the receiver bending angle and the transmitter bending angle, resulting in a rotated coupling tensor (in the context of Eq. 12 and Eq. 10, the rotation matrices
R
b
e
n
d
and
R
T
b
e
n
d
are applied to
Z
, which can be considered a rotation of
Z
to produce some rotated coupling tensor
Z
'
); and processing the rotated coupling tensor to compute the modeled electromagnetic logging measurements (
Z
’ would be processed within Eq. 12 to produce
V
).
Regarding claim 16, Frey in view of Miles teaches the limitations of claim 13. 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 Miles by causing processing of the 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 Miles teaches the limitations of claim 16, and from the discussion in the rejection of claim 16 it would have been obvious to cause generating the comparison to comprise comparing the modeled harmonic voltage coefficients with measured harmonic voltage coefficients from the electromagnetic logging measurements (see rejection of claim 16).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recite a system implementing the method of claim 1, the system including a processor and a drill string which would comprise the electromagnetic logging tools (see also Frey, Fig. 1, drill string 30 and ¶22; and Frey, ¶94: “the various methods disclosed herein for obtaining a full tensor gain compensated quantity may be implemented on a processor”). Claim 18 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of claim 13.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey (US 20160195634 A1) in view of Miles (US 20170160425 A1), and further in view of Sugiura (US 20160160628 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Frey in view of Miles 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 Miles 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 Miles 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 Miles by computing the curvature from a first attitude measurement and a second attitude measurement, the first attitude measurement and the second attitude measurement spaced apart. Doing so would enable one to use a known method to measure an actual rate of curvature.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey (US 20160195634 A1) in view of Miles (US 20170160425 A1), and further in view of Homan (US 7414391 B2).
Regarding claim 21, Frey in view of Miles teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 21. However, Frey does teach that computing the modeled electromagnetic logging measurements includes computing the modeled voltage according to (see Eq. 12 of Frey):
V
=
G
T
m
T
t
Z
m
R
G
R
Frey further teaches accounting for the angular offset due to the rotational misalignment of a first and second sub in which the transmitter and receiver, respectively, are housed, causing an angular offset
γ
-
α
along the z axis (the rotational axis of the BHA), and accounting for bending of the BHA about a bending axis (see ¶39). Finally, Frey also teaches accounting for logging tool rotation about the angle
θ
using matrices
R
T
_
B
H
A
_
r
o
t
and
R
R
_
B
H
A
_
r
o
t
(see Eq. 22 and ¶58). Accounting for all of these rotations, the above equation becomes:
V
=
G
T
R
T
_
B
H
A
_
r
o
t
R
T
b
e
n
d
R
z
γ
m
T
t
Z
R
R
_
B
H
A
_
r
o
t
R
b
e
n
d
R
z
α
m
R
G
R
=
G
T
m
T
t
R
Z
γ
t
R
T
b
e
n
d
t
R
T
_
B
H
A
_
r
o
t
t
Z
R
R
_
B
H
A
_
r
o
t
R
b
e
n
d
R
z
α
m
R
G
R
It is reasonable to assume that in some instances there would be no misalignment between the first and second subs and thus that the angular offset
γ
-
α
=
0
. In such a case
R
z
γ
and
R
z
α
would be unnecessary, and the above equation would become:
V
=
G
T
m
T
t
(
R
T
b
e
n
d
t
R
T
_
B
H
A
_
r
o
t
t
Z
R
R
_
B
H
A
_
r
o
t
R
b
e
n
d
)
m
R
G
R
Comparing this with the equation in claim 21, the only difference is that the above equation includes gain matrices
G
T
and
G
R
.
Homan teaches that the gain matrix can be derived by comparing the magnitudes of a calculated voltage and a corrected voltage, and that it normalizes voltage calculations to yield corrected values (Column 12, lines 22-27).
Considering the teachings of Homan, then, the above equation could be captured by
V
=
G
T
V
~
G
R
where
V
~
represents voltage that has not been normalized by compensating for gain. Since gain compensation can be performed as part of claim 1’s step of comparing between the measured voltage and the modeled voltage, 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 Homan with the invention of Frey in view of Miles by redefining the modeled voltage
V
to be equivalent to
V
~
as defined above, thus computing the modeled voltage according to
V
=
m
T
t
R
T
b
e
n
d
t
R
T
θ
t
Z
R
R
θ
R
R
b
e
n
d
m
R
where
V
is the modeled voltage (equivalent to
V
~
above),
m
T
t
is a transpose unit vector matrix of the transmitter,
R
T
b
e
n
d
t
is a transpose bending rotation matrix of the transmitter using the transmitter bending angle,
R
T
θ
t
(equivalent to
R
T
_
B
H
A
_
r
o
t
t
) is a transpose transmitter rotation matrix for the transmitter about a local rotation axis of the electromagnetic logging tool at the transmitter by angle
θ
,
R
R
θ
is a receiver rotation matrix for the receiver about a local rotation axis of the electromagnetic logging tool at the receiver by the angle
θ
,
R
R
b
e
n
d
(equivalent to
R
R
_
B
H
A
_
r
o
t
) is a receiver bending rotation matrix of the receiver using the receiver bending angle, and
m
R
is a unit vector matrix of the receiver. Doing so would not change the result of the process described in claim 1, only the organization of the steps.
Regarding claim 22, the limitations of claim 22 are found in claims 1 and 21 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 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