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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Priest (US 2021/0404798 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Priest discloses a method of determining a thickness of a casing installed in a wellbore, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having executable code stored thereon for determining a thickness of a casing installed in a wellbore, and a system for determining a thickness of a casing installed in a wellbore, the method, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and system comprising:
obtaining a signal measured by a downhole tool inserted in wellbore of a well, the acoustic signal generated by an acoustic pulse emitted by the downhole tool such that the acoustic pulse contacts the casing [[0003] obtaining acoustic waveform data in a time domain using an acoustic transducer configured to emit an acoustic signal and receive a return acoustic signal; [0006] FIG. 1 is a cross-sectional view of an embodiment of an acoustic tool disposed in a wellbore penetrating a subsurface formation; [0007] FIG. 2 is a cross-sectional view of the acoustic tool; [0008] FIG. 3 depicts aspects of acoustic energy travel paths from the acoustic tool to the wellbore wall and associated reflections];
determining a processing window in the signal by windowing the signal to a first reflection and reverberations of the first reflection [[0026] waveform is split at the intersection of the two ovals … when split into two separate waveforms each can be processed independently; [0040] multiple peaks may be present in a scan window; [0048] stage 1: within a predefined window, find the peak of the resonance tail, within a narrower window search the phase delay for a negative to positive zero crossing … processing windows for the phase delay is narrower than the initial scan windows; [fig. 4b] shows first, second, and third casing echo];
determining a complex group delay (CGD) in the processing window, the complex group delay having a real component and an imaginary component [[0066] determining, by the processor, an imaginary component function of the complex group delay function Gk to provide a phase delay function as a function of frequency; and characterizing, by the processor, the tubular using the phase delay function; [0069] embodiment 4: the method according to any prior embodiment, further including determining a real component function of the complex group delay function Gk to provide a group delay function as function of frequency];
identifying a resonant frequency from the complex group delay [[0068] the method according to any prior embodiment, wherein using the phase delay function includes determining a resonant frequency at an inflection point or zero crossing point between a negative peak and a positive peak on the phase delay function]; and
determining the casing thickness using the resonant frequency [[0083] determine the thickness of the tubular using the average resonant frequency].
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, Priest teaches the method of claim 1, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, and the system of claim 15, wherein the identifying a resonant frequency from the complex group delay comprises identifying the resonant frequency from a minimum of the imaginary component of the complex group delay (CGD) [[0038] imaginary component of the group delay function is used to identify the resonant frequency; [0049] selected minimum value].
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Priest teaches the method of claim 1, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, and the system of claim 15, wherein the identifying a resonant frequency from the complex group delay comprises identifying the resonant frequency from a deflection point of the real component of the complex group delay (CGD) [[0038] resonant frequency is identified in the phase delay curve p at the inflection point or zero-crossing point 56.; [0069] determining a real component function of the complex group delay function Gk to provide a group delay function as function of frequency].
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Priest the method of claim 1, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, and the system of claim 15, wherein determining the processing window in the signal by windowing the signal to a first reflection and reverberations of the first reflection comprises: determining the first reflection and associated noise [[0026] acoustic pulse can be distinguished from the resonance tail. In the absence of a casing resonance, the transducer acoustic pulse has a short time span, as indicated by the oval 22 enclosing the transducer pulse. The resonance, as indicated by the oval 23, can be clearly distinguished from the transducer acoustic pulse. If the waveform data is split at the intersection of the two ovals 24, the left half will contain the transducer acoustic pulse 22, and the right half will contain the resonance tail 23. When split into two separate waveforms, each can be processed independently. The resonance tail always occurs after the transducer acoustic pulse; however, depending of the shape of the transducer acoustic signal there will be varying degrees of overlapping; [0048] within a predefined window, find the peak of the resonance tail]; determining an arrival time and second reflection [[0072] computing a window having a minimum value and a maximum value that encompasses the second peak and searching for the second peak within the window]; and defining the processing window based on a proximity of a minimum of the imaginary component of the complex group delay (CGD) and a deflection point of the real component of the complex group delay (CGD) [[abstract] imaginary component of the complex delay …provide a phase delay; [0036] real component peak; [0048] steps 1 to 5; [fig. 4b]].
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 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priest (US 2021/0404798 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Deger (US 2019/0235107 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Priest does not explicitly teach and yet Deger teaches the method of claim 1 and he non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, wherein the downhole tool comprises an ultrasonic transducer oriented perpendicularly to the casing [[0026] acoustic tool may emit relatively high frequency acoustic waves (e.g., ultrasonic waves), which enables the acoustic tool to localize the high frequency acoustic waves along a certain borehole azimuth (e.g., a directional vector extending perpendicular to a central axis of the borehole). The high frequency acoustic waves may interact with the borehole, such that returned high frequency acoustic waves may be received by the acoustic tool and converted to digital data signals indicative of the pseudo-Rayleigh modes for each borehole azimuth].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to implement the borehole tool as taught by Priest, with the acoustic tool emitting ultrasonic waves perpendicular to the borehole as taught by Deger so that the tool may image the borehole.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 11, 14, 18, and 20 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: Zeroug (US 2016/0109604 A1) discusses an equation for casing thickness which relates casing compressional wave velocity and resonant frequency [[0053-0054]]. Also, Zeroug discusses reflection coefficients and their relationship to casing thickness [[0037]].
PNG
media_image1.png
30
110
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, the closest prior art of record does not appear to teach the method of claim 1, the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, and the system of claim 18, wherein determining the casing thickness using the resonant frequency comprises determining the casing thickness h using the following: fr=βc22hwhere fr is the resonant frequency, βis a correction factor related to the Poisson ratio of the casing material, c2 is the compressional velocity in steel, and h is the casing thickness.
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, the closest prior art of record does not appear to teach the method of claim 1, the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, and the system of claim 18, wherein the complex group delay (CGD) ZGω is determined according to the following: ZGω=-ifr1-R12R2Qω1+R1R2QωR1+R2Qωwhere fr is the resonant frequency, R1 is a first reflection coefficient, R2 is a second reflection coefficient, and Q(ω) is an auxiliary quantity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (see remarks regarding pgs. 7-10 below).
In the Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0404798 ("Priest"). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Deficiencies of the Rejection of Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite:
determining a processing window in the signal by windowing the signal to
a first reflection and reverberations of the first reflection;
determining a complex group delay (CGD) in the processing window, the
complex group delay having a real component and an imaginary component;
identifying a resonant frequency from the complex group delay;
Applicant respectfully asserts that Priest fails to disclose these elements of the independent claims.
The Office Action cites paragraphs of Priest that describe the determination of a processing window. Non-Final Office Action dated Dec. 8, 2025, p. 3. However, these paragraphs of Priest describe a different approach directed to "identifying a frequency at the inflection point as a resonant frequency." Priest, [0043]. First, although the cited paragraphs mention a "predefined window" Priest does not teach that this "predefined window" is "a first reflection and reverberations of the first reflection." Id. at [0048]. There is no definition in Priest of the "predefined window," nor does the Office Action provide any evidence that the "predefined window" of Priest is "a first reflection and reverberations of the first reflection" as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15.
The Examiner disagrees because Priest explicitly teaches that multiple peaks may be present in a scan window [[0040]]. This appears to be equivalent to the limitation of a processing window which contains a first reflection and reverberations of the first reflection as claimed. Priest also explicitly shows first, second, and third casing echoes – along with a resonance tail as shown in [[fig. 4b]]
Additionally, although Priest recognizes the presence of multiple reflections, Priest does not limit a processing window to a "first reflection." For example, the "third method" of Priest describes using each reflection and does not window processing to the first reflection: in the manner recited in claims 1, 8, and 15: "In a third method (method 3), ... Each reflection is digitized into a first plurality of numbers." Priest, [0028] (emphasis added). Thus, as described in this technique of Priest, all reflections are processed and the signal is not windowed to a "first reflection." Moreover, paragraph [0040] of Priest does not describe "windowing the signal to a first reflection..." as suggested in the Office Action. This paragraph describes the averaging of multiple methods of resonance frequency determination, none of which are windowed to "a first reflection and reverberations of the first reflection": Each of the methods discussed above may have issues that result in the resonant frequency being difficult to identify or being askew from the actual resonant frequency.
Consequently, the resonant frequencies as determined by multiple methods may be averaged or used together to increase the accuracy of the determination of the resonant frequency. Averaging may include weighted averaging with weight for each method being determined by the quality of the acoustic data. Other averaging methods may also be used. Priest, [0040]. The Office Action did not provide any citation or evidence that any of the "methods" of Priest mentioned in the citation above disclose "windowing the signal to a first reflection and reverberations of the first reflection."
The Office Action also cites paragraph [0048] of Priest as disclosing "determining a processing window in the signal by windowing the signal to a first reflection and reverberations of the first reflection." However, these paragraphs of Priest describe analysis of a "phase delay" and do not describe determination of a "determining a processing window...": Stage 1: Within a predefined window, find the peak of the resonance tail, within a narrower window search the phase delay for a negative to positive zero crossing, if a negative to positive zero crossing is found, then skip to stage 5. Stage 5: By linear interpolation of the phase delay, compute the frequency at the zero crossing (i.e., the inflection point). Priest, [0048] (emphasis added). As shown above, this section of Priest describes using a "phase delay" to determine an inflection point and resonance frequency. The phase delay is determined from the complex group delay after processing an acoustic waveform. Id. at [0066]. Thus, this section of Priest is not directed to the determination of a processing window of a waveform and cannot teach the "determining a processing window..." element recited in claims 1, 8, and 15.
For at least these reasons, the cited reference fails to teach all elements of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and does not anticipate the claims. Moreover, although the foregoing remarks have primarily addressed independent claims 1, 8, and 15, Applicant asserts that the cited reference fails to teach all elements of the dependent claims for at least the reasons argued above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection and allowance of claims 1, 8, and 15 and the claims that depend therefrom.
The Examiner disagrees that although Priest recognizes the presence of multiple reflections, Priest does not limit a processing window to a "first reflection” as argued. Priest explicitly teaches the goal of separating overlapping ovals which represent the first casing echo and reverberation tail so that the signals may be processed independently [[0026]] and that multiple peaks may be present in a scan window [[0040]]. Priest explicitly shows first, second, and third casing echoes in [[fig. 4b]]. Priest is concerned with the identification of true peaks in the presence of a resonance tail which overlaps at the end of the first casing echo as shown in fig. 4b. Priest narrows the initial scan windows in order to identify a processing window for determining phase delay [[0048]].
Deficiencies of the Rejection of Dependent Claims 5, 12, and 19
Although dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 are believed to be allowable based on their dependency on independent claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, Applicant asserts that claims 5, 12, and 19 recite subject matter clearly allowable over the cited reference. Dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 each recite: determining an arrival time and second reflections; and defining the processing window based on a proximity of a minimum of the imaginary component of the complex group delay (CGD) and a deflection point of the real component of the complex group delay (CGD). Applicant asserts that Priest fails to teach these claim elements.
The Office Action cites paragraphs [0048] and [0072] of Priest as disclosing the claim elements cited above. Non-Final Office Action dated Dec. 8, 2025, pp. 4-5. First, neither of the cited paragraphs, nor anywhere else in Priest, teach or even mention the term "arrival time" recited in claims 5, 12, and 19. Second, the cited paragraphs do not teaching using a "proximity of a minimum of the imaginary component of the complex group delay (CGD) and a deflection point of the real component of the complex group delay (CGD)." Paragraph [0048] of Priest describes using a "negative peak" and "positive peak" of a phase delay to find a "negative to positive zero crossing" (an inflection point). Priest, [0048]. However, this section of Priest only describes the "phase delay."-as described in Priest, the phase delay is determined from the imaginary component of the complex group delay: "determining, by the processor, an imaginary component function of the complex group delay function Gk to provide a phase delay." Id. at [0066]; See also claim 1. Thus, the section of Priest cited by the Examiner only describes identification of a negative to positive zero crossing of the imaginary component of a complex group delay. There is no teaching in Priest, in these paragraphs or elsewhere, that describes the use of the "proximity" of both "the imaginary component of the complex group delay (CGD) and a deflection point of the real component of the complex group delay (CGD)" as recited in dependent claims 5, 12, and 19.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection and allowance of dependent claims 5, 12, and 19.
The Examiner disagrees because Priest appears to be essentially using the zero crossing times and peaks of the analyzed signals in order to distinguish between first casing echo among the overlap due to resonance tail [[0026][0048][fig. 4b]]. The claim mapping relates zero crossing times and peaks as found because imaginary components of the complex delay - provide[s] a phase delay [[abstract]] and [0036] real component - [the] peak [[0036]].
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. @ 103
In the Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 6 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Priest as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0235107 ("Deger"). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Deficiencies of the Rejection
Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and claim 13 depends on claim 8. As discussed above with regard to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13, Priest does not teach all elements recited by claims 1 and 8. Deger does not cure the deficiencies of Priest discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 8. Thus, the cited references, taken alone or in hypothetical combination, do not disclose or suggest all elements of the base claims and cannot render claims 6 and 13 obvious. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection and allowance of claims 6 and 13.
The Examiner disagrees for similar reasons as described above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7339. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9am-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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 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 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.
/JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights