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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orban et al. (US 9,081,110, hereafter Orban) in view of Chang et al. (US 2008/0110691, hereafter Chang)
Orban teaches a wellbore system, comprising: a conveyance (drill string 212) extending into a wellbore from a surface location; and a logging tool (bottom hole assembly 200) operatively coupled to an end of the conveyance such that the logging tool is movable through the wellbore on the conveyance, the logging tool including: a support body (modules) operatively coupled to the conveyance; a plurality of hammers (movable members 30) being selectively operable to deliver an impulse load to a wall of the wellbore when in an extended position; and one or more accelerometers (accelerometers 41) operably coupled to each hammer and operable to detect an acceleration of the hammer induced by delivering the impulse load. (col. 7, lines 5-40, col. 10, lines 3-67, col. 15, lines 54-63, Figs. 1, 3, 15)
Orban does not teach a plurality of arms selectively movable from a retracted position to an extended position with respect to the support body; or wherein the hammers are supported at a radially outermost end of each arm.
. Chang teaches a wellbore system comprising a conveyance extending into a wellbore from a surface location and a logging tool operatively coupled to an end of the conveyance such that the logging tool is movable through the wellbore on the conveyance, the logging tool including: a support body operatively coupled to the conveyance and a hammer (200, 303) supported on an outermost end of an arm and being selectively operable to deliver an impulse load to a wall of the wellbore when in an extended position. (par. 11-13, 26, Figs. 1-3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the structure of Orban to have the hammers located on the end of an extendable arm, as taught by Chang, in order to provide an alternative actuation structure for the hammers to provide a relatively concentrated radial force having a well-understood mechanism of operation.
With respect to claim 2, Orban, as modified by Chang, teaches the plurality of arms includes at least one pair of aligned arms operable to extend across a diameter of the wellbore when the plurality of arms is in the extended position. (Orban, col. 10, lines 3-67, Fig. 3)
With respect to claim 3, Orban, as modified by Chang, teaches the at least one pair of aligned arms includes a plurality of pairs of aligned arms, each pair of aligned arms being longitudinally spaced from one another along the support body. (Orban, col. 10, lines 3-67, Fig. 3)
With respect to claim 4, Orban, as modified by Chang, teaches each pair of aligned arms extends in a different radial direction from the support body such that the hammers are circumferentially distributed about the wellbore wall. (Orban, col. 10, lines 3-67, Fig. 3)
With respect to claim 5, Orban, as modified by Chang, teaches the plurality of arms is coupled to the support body by hinges operable to fold the arms between the retracted and extended positions. (Chang, par. 11-13, 26, Figs. 1-3)
With respect to claim 6, Orban, as modified by Chang, teaches the plurality of arms is arranged generally parallel with the support body when in the retracted position and arranged generally perpendicular with the support body when in the extended position.
With respect to claim 7, Orban, as modified by Chang, teaches in the logging tool further comprises a control system (controller 260) in communication with each hammer to send a control signal that causes the hammer to deliver the impulse load, and further in communication with the one or more accelerometers to receive response signals indicative of an acceleration of each hammer during the impulse load. (Orban, col. 8, lines 5-19, col. 10, lines 27-36, col. 16, lines 20-24)
With respect to claim 8, Orban, as modified by Chang, teaches a surface controller disposed at the surface location and communicatively coupled to the control system by a cable extending along the conveyance. (Orban, col. 7, lines 25-65)
With respect to claim 9, Orban teaches a method of conducting a logging operation in a wellbore, the method comprising: deploying a logging tool on a conveyance to a first target location in the wellbore; moving a plurality of hammers from a retracted position to an extended position, where each hammer engages a wall of the wellbore at a distinct point at the first target location; delivering an impulse load to the wellbore wall with each hammer; measuring an acceleration of the hammer during the impulse load; and determining at least one characteristic of the wellbore wall from the acceleration of the hammer at the plurality of distinct points. (col. 7, lines 5-40, col. 10, lines 3-67, col. 15, lines 54-63, Figs. 1, 3, 15)
Orban does not teach that each hammer is disposed at a radially outward end of one of a plurality of arms operatively coupled to the logging tool.
Chang teaches a method of conducting a logging operation in a wellbore, comprising deploying a logging tool on a conveyance to a first target location in the wellbore and delivering an impulse lad to a wellbore wall with a hammer (200, 303) supported on an outermost end of an arm. (par. 11-13, 26, Figs. 1-3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Orban to have the hammers located on the end of an extendable arm, as taught by Chang, in order to provide an alternative actuation structure for the hammers to provide a relatively concentrated radial force having a well-understood mechanism of operation.
With respect to claim 10, Orban, as modified by Chang, teaches wherein delivering the impulse load includes impacting the wellbore wall with an equal force simultaneously with each hammer at the plurality of distinct points. (Orban, col. 10, lines 3-67)
With respect to claim 11, Orban, as modified by Chang, teaches wherein impacting the wellbore wall at the plurality of distinct points includes impacting the wellbore wall with an equal force simultaneously with corresponding hammers carried by at least one pair of the plurality of arms aligned with one another to extend across a diameter of the wellbore. (Orban, col. 10, lines 3-67)
With respect to claim 12, Orban, as modified by Chang, teaches wherein impacting the wellbore wall with an equal force simultaneously further includes impacting the wellbore wall with the corresponding hammers carried by corresponding arms of the plurality of arms longitudinally spaced from the at least one pair of the arms aligned with one another. (Orban, col. 10, lines 3-67)
With respect to claim 15, Orban, as modified by Chang, teaches retracting the plurality of arms to disengage the hammers from the wellbore wall; conveying the logging tool longitudinally from the first target location to a second target location in the wellbore; and transitioning the plurality of arms back to the extended position to engage the wellbore wall at the second target location.
With respect to claim 16, Orban teaches a wellbore logging tool, comprising: a support body (modules) elongated in a longitudinal direction; a plurality of hammers (movable members 30) being selectively operable to deliver an impulse load to a wall of the wellbore in an extended position; and one or more accelerometers (accelerometers 41) operably coupled to each hammer and operable to detect an acceleration of the hammer induced by delivering the impulse load. (col. 7, lines 5-40, col. 10, lines 3-67, col. 15, lines 54-63, Figs. 1, 3, 15)
Orban does not teach a plurality of arms coupled to the support body and selectively movable from a retracted position to an extended position with respect to the support body; or wherein the hammers are supported at a radially outermost end of each arm.
Chang teaches a wellbore logging tool including: a support body and a hammer (200, 303) supported on an outermost end of an arm and being selectively operable to deliver an impulse load to a wall of the wellbore when in an extended position. (par. 11-13, 26, Figs. 1-3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the structure of Orban to have the hammers located on the end of an extendable arm, as taught by Chang, in order to provide an alternative actuation structure for the hammers to provide a relatively concentrated radial force having a well-understood mechanism of operation.
With respect to claim 17, Orban, as modified by Chang, teaches a control system (controller 260) operatively coupled to the support body and in communication with each hammer to send a control signal that causes each hammers to deliver the impulse load, the control system being further in communication with the one or more accelerometers to receive response signals indicative of an acceleration of each hammer during the impulse load. (Orban, col. 8, lines 5-19, col. 10, lines 27-36, col. 16, lines 20-24)
With respect to claim 18, Orban, as modified by Chang, teaches the control system is operable to cause each hammer to impact the wellbore wall with an equal force simultaneously to thereby deliver the impulse load. (Orban, col. 8, lines 5-19, col. 10, lines 27-36, col. 16, lines 20-24)
With respect to claim 19, Orban, as modified by Chang, teaches wherein the plurality of arms is radially and longitudinally spaced from one another. (Orban, col. 10, lines 3-67, Fig. 3)
With respect to claim 20, Orban, as modified by Chang, teaches wherein the wherein the plurality of arms includes at least one pair of aligned arms extending from a common longitudinal location of the support body such that the at least one pair of aligned arms extend across a diameter of the wellbore when in the extended position. (Orban, col. 10, lines 3-67, Fig. 3)
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orban in view of Chang, as applied above, and further in view of AlTammar et al. (US 2023/0003118, hereafter AlTammar)
With respect to claim 13, Orban, as modified by Chang, teaches all that is claimed, as in the above rejection, except wherein determining at least one characteristic of the wellbore wall includes determining at least one of a hardness parameter or a reduced Young’s modulus of the wellbore wall.
AlTammar teaches a method of conducting a logging operation in a wellbore including determining at least one of a hardness parameter or a reduced Young’s modulus of the wellbore wall. (par. 23)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Orban to include determining at least one of a hardness parameter or a reduced Young’s modulus of the wellbore wall, as taught by AlTammar, in order to provide information about these properties to a user for a better understanding of the nature of the underground formation.
With respect to claim 14, although Orban, Chang and AlTammar do not explicitly teach determining the at least one characteristic of the wellbore wall includes calculating the hardness parameter or the reduced Young’s modulus with a Hertzian model, this is a known calculation technique, as mentioned by Chang (par. 13-25) and therefore it would have been an obvious choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed in order to provide the calculated information in a known manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 110673203, CN 113075723 and CN 119001824 each teach an invention having similarities to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/JILL E CULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights