DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/26/2024 and 01/02/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9-10, 17-18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 6, 9-10, 17-18, and 20: In the first line “further” should read “further comprising” or otherwise be corrected.
Regarding claim 20: This claim has a period at the end of the second line. This should be replaced with a colon or otherwise be corrected.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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 20060198243 A1) in view of Kamgang et al. (US 20220381137 A1).Regarding claim 1:Tang teaches a method comprising:
disposing an acoustic logging tool inside a casing string (e.g., [0005], [0009]), wherein the casing string is disposed in a wellbore to form an annulus between the casing string and the wellbore (e.g., [0004]), and is at least in part bonded to the wellbore by a cement; ([0004] - FIGS. 3-4, wellbore 18, cement 9, casing 8) transmitting an acoustic signal into at least part of the casing string to form a Lamb wave mode ([0009], [0022]); measuring an attribute of a Lamb wave mode ([0009], [0024]-[0026]); and determining if the casing string is fully or partially bonded to the cement or is free pipe or is partially bonded to a formation based at least in part on the Lamb wave mode(e.g., [0010], [0025]-[0026])Tang fails to teach:
the casing string is coatedKamgang teaches:
the casing string is coated([0016] - Kamgang teaches a system and method for evaluation of cementitious sheathing behind casing using asymmetric Lamb (AL) waves, where the procedure “can be used with coasted casings”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a coated casing, as taught by Kamgang, in the method of Tang, to allow for cement evaluation and other acoustic logging Lamb wave analyses, even when the casing is coated (which is common in the oil and gas industry). The combination amounts to applying a known technique (Lamb wave cement evaluation) to a known variant of the workpiece (coated casting) where the prior art explicitly recognizes the technique’s applicability to that variant, with predictable results.
It is noted that in all claims dependent upon claim 1, “coated” is met upon combination with Kamgang.
Regarding claim 2:Tang and Kamgang teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Tang also teaches:
wherein the attribute of the Lamb wave mode is an attribute of at least one of a symmetric mode (S0) and an antisymmetric mode (A0) of a flexural wave(FIGS. 2A-2B; [0022] - “[t]he particular Lamb wave modes preferably are induced one at a time and at different excitation frequencies”, [0024]-[0026]; FIG. 6)
Regarding claim 3:Tang and Kamgang teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Tang also teaches:
wherein the attribute of the Lamb wave mode is an attribute of a symmetric mode (S0) of a flexural wave(FIGS. 2A-2B; [0022] - “[t]he particular Lamb wave modes preferably are induced one at a time and at different excitation frequencies”, [0024]-[0026]; FIG. 6)
Regarding claim 4:Tang and Kamgang teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Tang also teaches:
wherein the attribute of the Lamb wave mode is an attribute of a symmetric mode (S0) and antisymmetric mode (A0) of a flexural wave(FIGS. 2A-2B; [0022] - “[t]he particular Lamb wave modes preferably are induced one at a time and at different excitation frequencies”, [0024]-[0026]; FIG. 6)
Regarding claim 6:Tang and Kamgang teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Tang also teaches:
using the acoustic logging tool using transducers in a pitch-catch arrangement([0023]-[0024])
Regarding claim 7:Tang and Kamgang teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Tang also teaches (e.g., FIGS. 3-4)
wherein the acoustic logging tool comprises at least one transmitter and at least one receiver (16a, 16b; [0023]-[0024]) separated by an axial distance (e.g., FIGS. 1 and 3-4)Tang fails to explicitly teach:
the axial distance ranging from about 0.1 inch (0.254 cm) to about 5 feet (152.4 cm)
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 II. The transducer spacing is routine optimization. If they are too close together, there is little attenuation and increased cost due to number of transmitters required to cover the desired area. If they are too far apart, then defects in the cement or the material(s) therebetween may change, leading to inaccurate results or insufficient resolution. Further, if they are too far apart they may no longer function due to excessive attenuation or suffer degraded accuracy due to noise.
Regarding claim 8:Tang teaches a method of identifying a material behind a casing string in an annulus of a wellbore (e.g., [0004] - FIGS. 1 and 3-4, wellbore 18, cement 9, casing 8) comprising:
disposing an acoustic logging tool inside the casing string in the wellbore (e.g., [0005], [0009]); transmitting an acoustic signal into at least part of the casing string ([0009], [0022]); measuring an attribute of a Lamb wave mode of the acoustic signal ([0009], [0024]-[0026]); and determining a type of material behind the casing in the annulus of the wellbore (e.g., [0010], [0024]-[0026])Tang fails to teach:
the casting string is coatedKamgang teaches:
the casting string is coated([0016] - Kamgang teaches a system and method for evaluation of cementitious sheathing behind casing using asymmetric Lamb (AL) waves, where the procedure “can be used with coasted casings”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a coated casing, as taught by Kamgang, in the method of Tang, to allow for cement evaluation and other acoustic logging Lamb wave analyses, even when the casing is coated (which is common in the oil and gas industry). The combination amounts to applying a known technique (Lamb wave cement evaluation) to a known variant of the workpiece (coated casting) where the prior art explicitly recognizes the technique’s applicability to that variant, with predictable results.
It is noted that in all claims dependent upon claim 8, “coated” is met upon combination with Kamgang.
Regarding claim 11:Tang and Kamgang teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Tang also teaches:
wherein the attribute of the Lamb wave mode is an attribute of at least one of a symmetric mode (S0) and an antisymmetric mode (A0) of a flexural wave(FIGS. 2A-2B; [0022] - “[t]he particular Lamb wave modes preferably are induced one at a time and at different excitation frequencies”, [0024]-[0026]; FIG. 6)
Regarding claim 12:Tang and Kamgang teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Tang also teaches:
wherein the attribute of the Lamb wave mode is an attribute of a symmetric mode (S0) of a flexural wave(FIGS. 2A-2B; [0022] - “[t]he particular Lamb wave modes preferably are induced one at a time and at different excitation frequencies”, [0024]-[0026]; FIG. 6)
Regarding claim 13:Tang and Kamgang teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Tang also teaches:
wherein the attribute of the Lamb wave mode is an attribute of a symmetric mode (S0) and antisymmetric mode (A0) of a flexural wave(FIGS. 2A-2B; [0022] - “[t]he particular Lamb wave modes preferably are induced one at a time and at different excitation frequencies”, [0024]-[0026]; FIG. 6)
Regarding claim 15:Tang and Kamgang teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Tang also teaches:
wherein the attribute of the Lamb wave mode is a proxy for energy of the mode(inherent to [0022]-[0026]; also see MPEP 2112.01 I)
Regarding claim 16:Tang and Kamgang teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Tang also teaches:
wherein the acoustic logging tool comprises at least one transmitter and at least one receiver (16a, 16b; [0023]-[0024]) separated by an axial distance (e.g., FIGS. 1 and 3-4)Tang fails to explicitly teach:
the axial distance ranging from about 0.1 inch (0.254 cm) to about 5 feet (152.4 cm)
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 II. The transducer spacing is routine optimization. If they are too close together, there is little attenuation and increased cost due to number of transmitters required to cover the desired area. If they are too far apart, then defects in the cement or the material(s) therebetween may change, leading to inaccurate results or insufficient resolution. Further, if they are too far apart they may no longer function due to excessive attenuation or suffer degraded accuracy due to noise.
Regarding claim 17:Tang and Kamgang teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Tang also teaches or renders obvious:
differentiating different types of cement if present behind the coated casing in the annulus of the wellbore
See [0010] and [0022]-[0026] of Tang. Tang teaches regular cement and light weight cement. Tang also teaches that “[v]alues for other cement or casing bond characteristics that can be similarly derived include density, compressive strength, tensile strength, mechanical elastic properties, Young's Modulus, Poisson's ratio, and porosity.” As such, Tang either teaches the limitations of claim 17 or renders them obvious in that either regular or light cement may be used and the density, compressive strength, tensile strength, mechanical elastic properties, Young's Modulus, Poisson's ratio, and porosity of the cement may be measured. [0007] of Tang teaches the light cement is explicitly “light weight cement” and defines it as “cement having a density less than approximately 12 lbs/gal”.
Regarding claim 18:Tang and Kamgang teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Tang also teaches:
using the acoustic logging tool using transducers in a pitch-catch arrangement([0023]-[0024])
Regarding claim 20:Tang and Kamgang teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Tang also teaches:
collecting Lamb wave modes using a pitch-catch source and receiver combinations governed by dispersion equations ([0023]-[0026]. Tang also teaches that Lamb wave propagation depends on the thickness of the medium, the wavelength, and properties of the medium, and provides Lamb wave dispersion curves - e.g., FIG. 6.)Tang fails to explicitly teach:
governed by the equations below
PNG
media_image1.png
84
212
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where
PNG
media_image2.png
52
116
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image3.png
54
112
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein a (+) sign on an exponent represents a symmetric type of lamb wave propagation and a (-) sign on the exponent represents an anti-symmetric type of lamb wave propagation, ω is a circular frequency, d is a thickness of plate or casing, k is a wave number, and Vp and Vs are longitudinal and shear wave velocities in the casing
However, the examiner takes Official notice that the equations of instant claim 20 are merely the well-known application of the Rayleigh-Lamb frequency equations or slight rearrangement thereof. Although not relied upon, these may be found under the Wikipedia article for “Lamb waves”, available at a plethora of dates using the wayback machine (as far back as 2008).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 20060198243 A1) in view of Kamgang et al. (US 20220381137 A1) and further in view of Kuijk et al. ("A novel ultrasonic cased-hole imager for enhanced cement evaluation").Regarding claim 9:Tang and Kamgang teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Tang also teaches:
distinguishing the type of material between air, water, and cement([0022]-[0026])Tang fails to explicitly teach:
distinguishing the type of material between air, water, mud, and cementKuijk teaches:
distinguishing the type of material between air (e.g., FIG. 4; pages 2-3), water (e.g., FIG. 4; pages 2-3), mud (introduction, conclusions), and cement (e.g., FIG. 4; pages 2-3)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the methodology of Kuijk (e.g., impedance determination) into the method of Tang to allow for differentiation between more types of materials by the casing.
Regarding claim 10:Tang and Kamgang teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Tang fails to teach:
correlating the attribute to an impedance of the material behind the coated casing in the annulus of the wellboreKuijk teaches:
correlating the attribute to an impedance of the material behind the coated casing in the annulus of the wellbore (e.g., introduction, FIG. 4, data processing)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the methodology of Kuijk (e.g., impedance determination) into the method of Tang to allow for differentiation between more types of materials by the casing.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 20060198243 A1) in view of Kamgang et al. (US 20220381137 A1) and further in view of Le Calvez et al. (US 20160209539 A1).Regarding claim 19:Tang and Kamgang teach all the limitations of claim 18, as mentioned above.Tang fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the pitch-catch arrangement includes leaky-Lamb wave measurements(Tang teaches Lamb wave propagation along casing using a transmitter-receiver configuration where the Lab wave leaks energy in to the surrounding cement, and the resulting attenuation is monitored to evaluate cement bond quality or material type; however, Tang fails to explicitly use the term “leaky-Lamb wave measurements”)Le Calvez teaches:
wherein the pitch-catch arrangement includes leaky-Lamb wave measurements (e.g., abstract, [0046], [0049])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the leaky-Lamb wave measurements of Le Calvez in the method of Tang to provide mode decomposition techniques for leaky-Lamb wave signals that improve the accuracy of flexural attenuation determination in cement evaluations (Le Calvez - [0046]-[0054]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious wherein the attribute of the Lamb wave mode is an integral of a symmetric mode (So) and an antisymmetric mode (Ao), (A0 + S0), waveform amplitude measurement, in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations. The prior art found by the examiner separates out A0 and S0 or combines them in a different way than claimed prior to arriving at the measured attribute.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights