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 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 4, there should be a conjunction “and” in the end of the line.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, it recites “automatically adjusting one or more operating parameters of the interrogator based at least in part on the estimated moment magnitude of the seismic moment.” However, there is no sufficient written support for this feature.
MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a) states “What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail.” MPEP 2163.03 (V) states “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated… The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification.”
Here, there is no indication that the limitation at issue is conventional or well known in the art. The limitation defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. Specification [0030] shows “Based on the analytic and processing results, the processor(s) 40 may adjust (e.g., automatically adjust, in certain embodiments) operations of the interrogator 24 (e.g., source light signals provided by the light source 26) or the seismic recorder 38 to adjust the borehole seismic acquisition.” However, it still fails to indicate how to make such adjustment based on the estimated moment magnitude. That is, it does not provide sufficient support to show that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukhtarov et al (US 20210132247 A1; cited in IDS; hereinafter “Mukhtarov”) in view of JIN et al (US 20230003119 A1 ; cite in IDS; hereinafter “JIN”).
Regarding claim 1, Mukhtarov teaches a method comprising:
disposing a plurality of sensors within a wellbore (i.e., “Distributed acoustic sensors detect strain within a wellbore along a fiber optic cable resulting from the microseismic event”; see [0021]);
receiving, by a processor (i.e., “the computing device 116 may be a computing device with a data acquisition system that can receive the output from the reflectometer 115 and process the output using various analysis and visualization tools”; see [0030]), distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) data of strain measurements from the plurality of sensors (i.e., “Distributed acoustic sensors detect strain within a wellbore along a fiber optic cable resulting from the microseismic event”; see [0021]);
reading by the processor, the (i.e., “the computing device 116 is able to read strain on the fiber optic cable 108, displacement of the fiber optic cable 108, or both at varying locations”; see [0039]);
generating (i.e., fit), by a processor, a displacement spectrum model based on the displacement data (i.e., “a displacement spectrum may be used”; see [0023]; “The aggregate spectrum may then be fit to the Brune circular crack model”; see [0025]); and
estimating, by a processor, a moment magnitude of a seismic moment using the displacement spectrum model (i.e., “Fitting the aggregate spectrum to the Brune circular crack model, or another fault source model, may enable a derivation of moment magnitude and related attributes from the observed data at the distributed acoustic sensor”; see [0025]).
Mukhtarov does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
converting, by the processor, the DAS data to displacement data using a conversion algorithm.
But JIN teach:
converting the DAS data to displacement data using a conversion algorithm (i.e., “The strain measurement can be further integrated in space to get displacement”; see [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mukhtarov in view of JIN, by converting, by the processor, the DAS data to displacement data using a conversion algorithm, as claimed. The rationale would be to help obtaining the displacement data.
Regarding claim 4, Mukhtarov further teaches:
wherein the displacement spectrum model comprises an omega-squared source model (i.e., “In the Brune circular crack model n=2”; see [0047]).
Regarding claim 5, Mukhtarov further teaches:
coupling the plurality of sensors (i.e., “distributed acoustic sensor”) to an interrogator (i.e., “reflectometer 115”), wherein the plurality of sensors comprise fiber-optic sensors (i.e., “a length of fiber optic cable 108. As illustrated, the fiber optic cable 108 may be communicatively coupled to a reflectometer 115”; see [0028]);
providing, by the interrogator, light signals to the plurality of sensors (i.e., “the reflectometer 115 injects light pulses into the fiber optic cable 108”; see [0038]);
detecting and recording, by the interrogator, back scattered light signals from the plurality of sensors (i.e., “the process 300 involves receiving reflected optical signals at the reflectometer 115”; see [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Mukhtarov further teaches: wherein the interrogator comprises a light source and a light recorder (i.e., “reflectometer 115 injects light pulses”; see [0038]; “reflected optical signals at the reflectometer 115”; see [0039] this implied that the reflectometer has, or functions as, both a light source and a light recorder), wherein:
the light source provides the light signals to the plurality of sensors (see [0038]); and
the light recorder detects and records the back scattered light signals from the plurality of sensors (see [0039]).
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and is rejected by applying the same teachings (see [0082] regarding executable instructions in a memory).
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 4 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 5 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 6 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 15, Mukhtarov further teaches:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the oil and gas well control system to the seismic moment (i.e., “control a hydraulic fracturing operation that results in the microseismic event… For example, the hydraulic fracturing system 118 may control proppant concentrations in the hydraulic fluid, pumping rate of the hydraulic fluid, hydraulic fluid pressure, or any other hydraulic fracturing parameters to increase the hydraulic fracturing efficiency based on the locations and the event magnitudes of microseismic events”; [0032]).
Mukhtarov does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the oil and gas well control system to automatically adjust one or more operating parameters of the oil and gas well system based at least in part on the estimated moment magnitude of the seismic moment.
However, it is well-known to automate certain operations in response to known conditions, such as adjusting the pumping rate of the hydraulic fluid based on the moment magnitude (see Mukhtarov, [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system, such that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the oil and gas well control system to automatically adjust one or more operating parameters of the oil and gas well system based at least in part on the estimated moment magnitude of the seismic moment, as claimed. The rationale would be to help maintaining the operations (e.g. hydraulic fracturing) in a safe and optimal range in response to the operation conditions (e.g., moment magnitude of fracturing).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 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:
Regarding claims 2, 3, 9, and 10, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features of claim 2 (as the representative): “wherein generating the displacement spectrum model comprises: inverting a signal moment of the displacement data, a corner frequency and the corner frequency’s DAS compensation, and a DAS high-frequency decay compensation factor,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Although Mukhtarov teaches inverting a signal moment of the displacement data and a corner frequency, it does not teach or suggest inverting “the corner frequency’s DAS compensation, and a DAS high-frequency decay compensation factor.” JIN is silent of the feature.
Caprio et al. ("An evolutionary approach to real‐time moment magnitude estimation via inversion of displacement spectra" GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L02301, 2011) teaches inverting the low frequency plateau, the corner frequency, and a high frequency factor, but fails to teach inverting “the corner frequency’s DAS compensation.”
Stork et al. ("The robustness of seismic moment and magnitudes estimated using spectral analysis" Geophysical Prospecting, 2014, 62, 862-878) teaches, similar to Mukhtarov, inverting a signal moment of the displacement data and a corner frequency, it does not teach or suggest inverting “the corner frequency’s DAS compensation, and a DAS high-frequency decay compensation factor.”
None of the prior art of record, singly or in combination, teaches or suggests the indicated feature as claimed.
Notes
Claim 7 distinguishes over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features: “automatically adjusting one or more operating parameters of the interrogator based at least in part on the estimated moment magnitude of the seismic moment,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. Although Mukhtarov teaches adjusting parameters of hydraulic fracturing operation, it is different from the claimed feature. None of the prior art of record, singly or in combination, teaches or suggests the indicated feature as claimed.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Soroush et al. ("Downhole Monitoring Using Distributed Acoustic Sensing: Fundamentals and Two Decades Deployment in Oil and Gas Industries" SPE-200088-MS, 2022) provides an overview of the applications of DAS including seismic application (vertical seismic profiling), microseismic (hydraulic fracturing characterization), well and pipe integrity (such as leak detection and cement quality), and well and pipe flow monitoring.
Lellouch et al. ("Seismic Applications of Downhole DAS" Sensors 2021, 21, 2897) reviews and summarizes different seismic uses, passive and active, of downhole DAS, with emphasis on current DAS limitations and potential ways to overcome them.
Ashry et al. ("A Review of Distributed Fiber–Optic Sensing in the Oil and Gas Industry" JOURNAL OF LIGHTWAVE TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 40, NO. 5, MARCH 1, 2022) reviews the deployment of fiber-optic Rayleigh-based distributed acoustic sensing (DAS), Raman-based distributed temperature sensing (DTS), and Brillouin-based distributed temperature and strain sensing (DTSS) in the oil and gas industry.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights