DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 18th March, 2026. Claim(s) 1-20 were amended; No Claim(s) were cancelled, and Claim(s) 21 was added. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-21 are pending in current application and are addressed below. Examiner appreciates the courtesies extended by applicant throughout the prosecution of this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/03/2025, and 04/15/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification (more than 20 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 9-12 of 13), with respect to the rejections of Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, 15-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a1) as being anticipated by Padhi (US 2020/0103544 A1), are fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amended claim(s); therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection, necessitated by the amendment is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied references and new prior art as described below. Claim(s) 1-20 have been amended; therefore, Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13; 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padhi (US 2020/0103544 A1) in further view of Constantinou (US 2017/0284187 A1); Claim(s) 4, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padhi in view of Constantinou as applied to Claim(s) 1, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of Singh (US 2024/0012168 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13; 15-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padhi (US 2020/0103544 A1) in further view of Constantinou (US 2017/0284187 A1).
Referring to Claim 1, Padhi teaches a method for managing operation of a well ([0001]), the method comprising:
obtaining distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) data, the DAS data being based on a measurement made using a DAS sensing element positioned in the well (Abstract: Optical fiber is the DAS system of sensing elements that obtains DAS seismic profile (data) for well (borehole 103) use);
performing a qualification process for the DAS data to identify whether any portion of the DAS sensing element was acoustically coupled to a structure of the well during the measurement in a manner that introduced at least one artifact to the DAS data ([0020]);
in a first instance of the performing the qualification process in which at least one portion of the DAS sensing element was coupled to the structure in the manner that introduced the at least one artifact to the DAS data ([0026]: DAS is coupled /fixed to the optical fiber 113…; [0031]: DAS data + sensing element. Identifying region […] as including coherent noise.);
performing a remediation process to manage impacts of the at least one artifact on downstream use of the DAS data (Abstract; [0022]; [0034]: wherein remediation = denoising/mitigating coherent noise to produce reduced noise profile for further interpretation).
Padhi doesn’t explicitly teach the performing the qualification process comprising obtaining a coupling quality map for the DAS sensing element, the coupling quality map comprising data classifications comprising information indicating associations between portions of the DAS data and portions of the DAS sensing element; adjusting DAS acquisition in real-time, using the information regarding qualified DAS data and unqualified DAS data, by proactive modification of cable tension or cable slack based on the coupling quality map for the DAS sensing element to improve coupling and a signal-to-noise ratio of subsequently-acquired DAS data.
Constantinou teaches the performing the qualification process comprising obtaining a coupling quality map for the DAS sensing element ([0023]: the location along the wireline 115 within the wellbore 101 at which the scatter occurs is determined; [0037]: observing locations along the wireline 115 where the strain does not change in order to determine wireline disposition/coupling locations), the coupling quality map comprising data classifications comprising information indicating associations between portions of the DAS data and portions of the DAS sensing element ([0023]: the backscatter from each section of the optical conductor 204 depends on the temperature and strain experienced by that section; [0049]: observing locations along the wireline where strain does not change in response to further lowering the wireline in the wellbore [...] inferring that the wireline is in contact with a sidewall or casing of the wellbore at the observed locations where strain does not change in response to further lowering the wireline in the wellbore (i.e. those observed locations));
adjusting DAS acquisition in real-time ([0017]: monitor the real-time cable behavior inside the wellbore while slack exists in the cable; [0029]: Such real-time quality control using DSTS may permit selecting a slack amount optimized for acquiring good quality DAS data), using the information regarding qualified DAS data and unqualified DAS data, by proactive modification of cable tension or cable slack ([0016]: slack in the wireline may be introduced to aid coupling with the wellbore or casing; [00148]: the measurements and analyses may be utilized to determine an amount of slack to be added to improve the coupling of the cable to the wellbore/casing) based on the coupling quality map for the DAS sensing element ([0037]: determining wireline disposition from strain changes at locations along the wireline; [0029]: real-time quality control using DSTS may permit selecting a slack amount optimized for acquiring good quality DAS data) to improve coupling (Fig. 7; [0018]: determine an amount of slack to be added to improve the coupling of the cable to the wellbore/casing; [0030]: data quality is improved by giving slack to the wireline, thus improving coupling between the wireline and the wellbore/casing) and a signal-to-noise ratio of subsequently-acquired DAS data ([032]: signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was also reduced in relation to slack/coupling behavior; [0034]: the optimal quantity of slack to be given to the wireline to improve the overall data quality of DAS).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine method for managing operation of a well disclosed in Padhi with obtaining a coupling quality map for the DAS sensing element and adjusting DAS acquisition in real-time, using the information regarding qualified DAS data and unqualified DAS data taught in Constantinou with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have predictably improved qualification of DAS data and subsequent DAS acquisition quality by proactively adjusting cable coupling conditions based on location-dependent coupling information as taught by Constantinou ([0016]; [0018]; [0029]-[0034]).
Referring to Claim 2, Padhi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the performing the qualification process comprises:
performing a clustering analysis using portions of the DAS data to establish a set of clusters of the portions of the DAS data (304 of Fig. 3; [0031]: region of the DAS seismic profile is identified as including coherent noise);
qualifying each cluster of the set of clusters with respect to whether the at least one artifact is present ([0020]: Wherein coherent noise can be present in DAS data (shot gathers));
qualifying portions of the DAS sensing element using corresponding clusters of the set of clusters with respect to whether each respective portion of the DAS sensing element is acoustically coupled to the structure in the manner that introduced the at least one artifact to the DAS data ([0020]: DAS fiber optic cable […] resonate […] coherent noise).
Referring to Claim 3, Padhi teaches the method of claim 2, wherein:
performing the qualification process further comprises performing a preconditioning process using the DAS data (Title; Abstract) to obtain the portions of the DAS data (Abstract; [0021]-[0022]: the DAS seismic profile is decomposes into multiple levels of wavelet coefficients); and
each of the portions of the DAS data comprises frequency domain data (Abstract; [0021]-[0022]: the DAS seismic profile is decomposes into multiple levels of wavelet coefficients).
Referring to Claim 5, Padhi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the performing the qualification process comprises:
obtaining a set of cross-correlation coefficients for portions of the DAS data ([0020]-[0022]);
obtaining statistical characterizations of subsets of the set of cross-correlation coefficients ([0032]);
qualifying portions of the DAS sensing element using a corresponding statistical characterization of the statistical characterizations with respect to whether each respective portion of the DAS sensing element is acoustically coupled to the structure in the manner that introduced the at least one artifact to the DAS data ([0020]-[0021]).
Referring to Claim 6, Padhi teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the qualifying the portions of the DAS sensing element comprises:
obtaining a threshold for the statistical characterizations ([0033]);
for a portion of the portions of the DAS sensing element: comparing the corresponding statistical characterization to the threshold to ascertain whether the portion of the DAS sensing element is acoustically coupled to the structure in the manner that introduced the at least one artifact to the DAS data ([0020]).
Referring to Claim 7, Padhi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the performing the remediation process comprises:
providing, to an operator of the well, information regarding the at least one portion of the DAS sensing element to facilitate supplementary measurements that are performed in a manner prescribed to manage acoustic coupling between the at least one portion of the DAS sensing element and the structure ([0024]-[0026]).
Referring to Claim 8, Padhi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the performing the remediation process comprises identifying, from the DAS data, qualified DAS data for use in modeling of the well ([0020]-[0022]).
Referring to Claim 9, Padhi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the downstream use of the DAS data comprises:
obtaining a well model for the well based, at least in part, on the DAS data ([0026]);
selecting operating parameters for the well based, at least in part, on the well model, wherein the well is operated using the operating parameters ([0026]).
Referring to Claim 10, Padhi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the downstream use of the DAS data comprises:
obtaining a geological model for a geological formation penetrated by the well based, in part, on the DAS data ([0026]);
obtaining an energy product based, at least in part, on the geological model ([0020]; [0039]).
Claim 11 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to a non-transitory machine-readable medium (Padhi’ [0073]) having instructions stored therein, which, when executed by one or more processors (Padhi’ [0026]), cause the one or more processors to perform operations for managing operation of a well for the method of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above.
Claim 12 is essentially the same as Claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 2 above.
Claim 13 is essentially the same as Claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 3 above.
Claim 15 is essentially the same as Claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 5 above.
Claim 16 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to a data processing system comprising: one or more processors (Padhi’ [0026]); a memory coupled to the one or more processors to store instructions (Padhi’ [0026]), which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations for managing operation of a well for the method Claim 1. Therefore Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above.
Claim 17 is essentially the same as Claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 2 above.
Claim 18 is essentially the same as Claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 3 above.
Claim 20 is essentially the same as Claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 5 above.
Referring to Claim 21, Padhi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the qualification process further comprises identifying artifacts included in the DAS data as statistical outliers ([0033]).
Claim(s) 4, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padhi in view of Constantinou as applied to Claim(s) 1, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of Singh (US 2024/0012168 A1).
Referring to Claim 4, Padhi teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the qualifying each cluster of the set of clusters with respect to whether the at least one artifact is present but doesn’t explicitly teach comprises matching frequency domain data from members of each cluster to a template of a set of templates; and each template of the set of templates indicates spectral responses associated with different acoustic coupling conditions for DAS sensing elements.
Singh teaches matching frequency domain data from members of each cluster to a template of a set of templates ([0034]; [0040]: wherein machine learning model is trained to classify coupling noise); and
each template of the set of templates indicates spectral responses associated with different acoustic coupling conditions for DAS sensing elements ([0026]-[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine qualifying each cluster of the set of clusters with respect to whether the at least one artifact is present disclosed in Padhi with matching frequency domain data from members of each cluster to a template of a set of templates, and each template of the set of templates indicating spectral responses associated with different acoustic coupling conditions for DAS sensing elements taught in Singh with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have been known to identify known coupling signatures and mitigate coupling noise (e.g., zigzag noise) in DAS VSP records through a machine learning algorithm such as a generative adversarial network as taught by Singh ([0027]).
Claim 14 is essentially the same as Claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 4 above.
Claim 19 is essentially the same as Claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 4 above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights