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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-16 and 22, drawn to a method (claims 1-16) and a system (claim 22) for determining at least one of a number of the plurality of nested casings or a respective size of each casing of a plurality of nested casings, based on a set of induction, multi-spacing, multi- frequency measurements, classified in E21B47/085.
II. Claims 17-21, drawn to a method that includes determining a plurality of electromagnetic (EM) field distributions for a plurality of casing configurations for a set of well completions, classified in E21B47/085.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I (claims 1-16) and II are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed at least have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. For example, Invention I requires determining at least one of a number of the plurality of nested casings or a respective size of each casing of the plurality of nested casings, based on the set of induction, multi-spacing, multi-frequency measurements, which is not required by Invention II. On the other hand, Invention II requires determining a plurality of receiver locations for a respective plurality of receivers of an EM inspection tool, based on the plurality of EM field distributions, which is not required by invention I. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions II and I (claim 22) are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus (claim 22) as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process because claim 22 performs determining at least one of a number of the plurality of nested casings or a respective size of each casing of the plurality of nested casings, based on the set of induction, multi-spacing, multi-frequency measurements, which is materially different from the process of claim 17.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g. employing different search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with applicant representative Jeffrey Frantz (Reg. No. 56,189) on 3/3/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-16 and 22. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-2 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by applicant-cited US 2017/0176629 to Omeragic et al. (Omeragic).
Regarding claim 1, Omeragic discloses a method comprising:
operating an electromagnetic (EM) inspection tool in a well comprising a plurality of nested casings, the EM inspection tool comprising a transmitter and a plurality of non-collocated receivers configured to operate at one or more frequencies, each of the plurality of non-collocated receivers being located at a different spacing with respect to the transmitter (Omeragic, e.g., Fig. 2 and paragraphs 34-36, nested casings including outer casing 30, middle casing 32, and inner casing 34, with logging tool 16 located inside the nested casings that includes one or more transmitters 57 and a plurality of receivers 66, 68, 70, 72, 74 that are not collocated with the one or more transmitters 57; note in paragraph 36 that logging tool 16 may operate at any suitable number of frequencies; also see Abstract in this regard, method includes obtaining, with a plurality of receivers of a logging tool, a set of induction, multi-spacing, multi-frequency measurements of a plurality of nested casings);
obtaining, using the EM inspection tool, a set of induction, multi-spacing, multi-frequency measurements of the plurality of nested casings (Omeragic, e.g., Fig. 2 and paragraphs 34-36, receivers 66, 68, 70, 72, 74 may detect the strength and/or phase of the secondary magnetic field from the casing 12; these detected values may then be used to determine a thickness of the casing(s) 12 using any suitable electromagnetic measurement analyses; also see Fig. 3 and paragraphs 37-56; note paragraph 37 in particular, Fig. 3 is a flowchart of a method 100 for determining thicknesses of individual casings (e.g., 30, 32, 34) among a plurality of nested casings (e.g., 12) using a set of induction multi-spacing and multi-frequency measurements); and
determining at least one of a number of the plurality of nested casings or a respective size of each casing of the plurality of nested casings, based on the set of induction, multi-spacing, multi-frequency measurements (Omeragic, e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraphs 37-56; note paragraph 37 in particular, Fig. 3 is a flowchart of a method 100 for determining thicknesses of individual casings (e.g., 30, 32, 34) among a plurality of nested casings (e.g., 12) using a set of induction multi-spacing and multi-frequency measurements; also see Fig. 3, step 108 and paragraph 56 in particular, to determine thickness of the individual casings, e.g., outer casing 30, middle casing 32, and inner casing 34; note the method of Fig. 3 is implemented using processor 22/memory 24 of Omeragic’s monitoring device 18 (Fig. 1); also see paragraph 31; the examiner notes that Omeragic therefore at least discloses determining a respective size of each casing of the plurality of nested casings based on the set of induction, multi-spacing, multi-frequency measurements; also see, e.g., paragraph 50, the inversion model parameterization also enables inverting for the inner and/or outer diameter of individual casings (e.g., 30, 32, 34), which may be useful when there is sufficient information to resolve these parameters (e.g., from the measurement data and/or from some other data, such as ultrasonic measurements)).
Regarding the term “size” as used in the claims, the examiner understands that portions of the specification appear to imply that the term “size” used in reference to a casing is intended to exclude from its scope a thickness dimension of the casing (see, e.g., paragraph 52 of specification, “the data processing system 138 and/or the EM inspection tool 160 may be utilized in acquiring additional information about the casings 122 and/or the wellbore 116, such as a number of casings 122, size (e.g., outer diameter) of each casing 122, nominal thickness of each casing 122, …”; also see paragraph 2 of the specification). The examiner views these portions as insufficient to clearly define the term “size” as excluding thickness, especially in light of the frequent use of “size (e.g., outer diameter)” throughout the specification. The examiner suggests amendment of the claims to explicitly recite “diameter” instead of “size” to provide additional clarity. Such an amendment would appear to distinguish over Omeragic’s “thickness” determinations, although not over Omeragic’s teaching in paragraph 50 (resolving inner/outer diameter parameters from measurement data). Further, notwithstanding Omeragic’s teaching in paragraph 50, the examiner notes for purposes of compact prosecution that other references cited by the examiner (but not presently relied upon for any claim rejection) disclose the possibility/desirability of determining casing diameter using EM inspection tools/measurements that appear similar/identical to those of Omeragic. See, e.g., WO 2016/007307 to Donderici et al., e.g., paragraphs 87, 89; US 2017/0167241 to Wu et al., e.g., paragraph 22; US 2010/0017137 to Legendre et al., e.g., paragraphs 18, 21, 27, 43; US 20210239874 to Fouda, e.g., paragraphs 45-46, claims 1, 9; US 2017/0114628 to Khalaj Amineh et al., e.g., paragraphs 14, 27-28 (note also that Khalaj Amineh discloses determining number of casings in paragraphs 27-28).
Regarding claim 2, Omeragic discloses wherein operating the EM inspection tool comprises emitting, from the transmitter of the EM inspection tool, a primary time-varying magnetic field signal towards the plurality of nested casings, the primary time-varying magnetic field signal inducing a corresponding one or more secondary time-varying magnetic field signals in the plurality of nested casings, and the one or more secondary time-varying magnetic field signals being detected by one or more of the plurality of non-collocated receivers (Omeragic, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraphs 29-33, logging tool 16 generates a time-varying magnetic field signal that interacts with the casings 12 having conductive and magnetic properties; logging tool 16 may be energized from the surface or have its own internal power used to emit the time-varying magnetic field signal; the magnetic field signal closes outwards from the logging tool 16 through and along the casings 12; the magnetic field signal from the logging tool 16 may therefore generate eddy currents in the casings 12 and induce corresponding secondary magnetic field signals; logging tool 16 may detect the secondary magnetic field signals; also see Fig. 2 and paragraph 35, receivers 66, 68, 70, 72, 74 may detect the strength and/or phase of the secondary magnetic field from the casing 12; also see Fig. 3 and paragraph 37, processor 22 controls the transmitter 57 of the logging tool 16 to emit a time-varying magnetic field signal towards the plurality of nested casings 12; the time-varying magnetic field signal induces corresponding secondary magnetic field signals in the plurality of nested casings 12, detected by the plurality of receivers (e.g., 66, 68, 70, 72, and/or 74) of the logging tool 16).
Claim 22 recites a system comprising:
a plurality of nested casings disposed in a well;
an electromagnetic (EM) inspection tool disposed in the plurality of nested casings, wherein the EM inspection tool comprises a transmitter and a plurality of non-collocated receivers, each of the plurality of non-collocated receivers being located at a different spacing with respect to the transmitter; and
a control system communicatively coupled to the EM inspection tool, the control system comprising:
one or more memories collectively storing instructions; and
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors being collectively configured to execute the instructions to cause the control system to perform an operation comprising:
obtaining, using the EM inspection tool, a set of induction, multi-spacing, multi-frequency measurements of the plurality of nested casings; and
determining at least one of a number of the plurality of nested casings or a respective size of each casing of the plurality of nested casings, based on the set of induction, multi-spacing, multi-frequency measurements,
and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by Omeragic for reasons identical to those discussed above in connection with the rejection of claim 1.
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 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.
Claims 3-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omeragic in view of WO 2016/007380 to Donderici (Donderici).
Regarding claim 3, Omeragic discloses wherein the set of induction, multi-spacing, multi-frequency measurements comprise, for each of the plurality of non-collocated receivers, the one or more secondary time-varying magnetic field signals (Omeragic, e.g., paragraph 36). Omeragic is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing that the measurements also comprise, for each of the plurality of non-collocated receivers, a frequency domain response to the primary time-varying magnetic field signal such that measurement for each of the plurality of non-collocated receivers comprise a respective set of frequency domain responses. In other words, Omeragic discloses that measurements for each non-collocated receiver includes a frequency domain response to the to the one or more secondary time-varying magnetic field signals, but not a frequency domain response to the primary time-varying magnetic field signal. Donderici relates to electromagnetic inspection methods for wellbore pipes, such as strings of casing or production pipes extended into a wellbore in the context of nested casings. Donderici discloses that addition to the eddy currents, which exhibit pipe feature (characteristic) information, a direct coupling from the transmitters 806a-n to the receivers 808a-m exists, and that in the case of separated transmitters 806a-n and receivers 808a-m, this coupling term is relatively small (Donderici, e.g., Fig. 8B and paragraph 68). Donderici discloses that this direct coupling can be removed by software through the use of an additive term, which is computed in an air calibration step (Donderici, e.g., Fig. 8B and paragraph 68). At least in view of Omeragic’s arrangement of Fig. 2 (separated transmitter and receivers), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, in view of Donderici’s disclosure, that the frequency domain response of Omeragic’s receivers 66, 68, 70, 72, 74 will also include a frequency domain response to the primary time-varying magnetic field signal, however small. For at least this reason, the recitation that the set of induction, multi-spacing, multi-frequency measurements comprise, for each of the plurality of non-collocated receivers, a respective set of frequency domain responses to the primary time-varying magnetic field signal and the one or more secondary time-varying magnetic field signals does not patentably distinguish over Omeragic in view of Donderici.
Claim 4 recites wherein determining the number of the plurality of nested casings comprises determining the number of the plurality of nested casings based on the respective set of frequency domain responses for a non-collocated receiver of the plurality of non-collocated receivers. The examiner notes that this recitation relates to one of a number of possible determinations of claim 1 (“determining at least one of a number of the plurality of nested casings or a respective size of each casing of the plurality of nested casings”). Omeragic in view of Donderici as applied to claim 3 teaches one of these possible determinations (determining size), with the other possible determination (determining number) being optional and therefore without patentable weight. Because claim 4 relates exclusively to this optional determination, claim 4 does not carry patentable weight.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and recites wherein the spacing of the non-collocated receiver with respect to the transmitter is greater than or equal to twice a maximum size of an outer casing of the plurality of nested casings. The examiner notes that this recitation relates to one of a number of possible determinations of claim 1 (“determining at least one of a number of the plurality of nested casings or a respective size of each casing of the plurality of nested casings”). Omeragic in view of Donderici as applied to claim 4 teaches one of these possible determinations (determining size), with the other possible determination (determining number) being optional and therefore without patentable weight. Because claim 5 relates exclusively to this optional determination, claim 5 does not carry patentable weight.
Claim 6 depends from claim 4 and recites wherein the spacing of the non-collocated receiver is such that the respective set of frequency domain responses for the non-collocated receiver is based on the one or more secondary time-varying magnetic field signals being greater than the primary time-varying magnetic field signal. The examiner notes that this recitation relates to one of a number of possible determinations of claim 1 (“determining at least one of a number of the plurality of nested casings or a respective size of each casing of the plurality of nested casings”). Omeragic in view of Donderici as applied to claim 4 teaches one of these possible determinations (determining size), with the other possible determination (determining number) being optional and therefore without patentable weight. Because claim 6 relates exclusively to this optional determination, claim 6 does not carry patentable weight.
Claim 7 depends from claim 4 and recites wherein the non-collocated receiver is a farthest non-collocated receiver from the transmitter among the plurality of non-collocated receivers. The examiner notes that this recitation relates to one of a number of possible determinations of claim 1 (“determining at least one of a number of the plurality of nested casings or a respective size of each casing of the plurality of nested casings”). Omeragic in view of Donderici as applied to claim 4 teaches one of these possible determinations (determining size), with the other possible determination (determining number) being optional and therefore without patentable weight. Because claim 7 relates exclusively to this optional determination, claim 7 does not carry patentable weight.
Claim 8 depends from claim 4 and recites wherein, for a given frequency in the respective set of frequency domain responses for the non-collocated receiver, the number of the plurality of nested casings is indicated by a magnitude or a phase of a corresponding frequency domain response at the frequency. The examiner notes that this recitation relates to one of a number of possible determinations of claim 1 (“determining at least one of a number of the plurality of nested casings or a respective size of each casing of the plurality of nested casings”). Omeragic in view of Donderici as applied to claim 4 teaches one of these possible determinations (determining size), with the other possible determination (determining number) being optional and therefore without patentable weight. Because claim 8 relates exclusively to this optional determination, claim 8 does not carry patentable weight.
Regarding claim 9, Omeragic in view of Donderici discloses wherein determining the respective size of each casing of the plurality of nested casings comprises determining the size of a first casing of the plurality of nested casings based on the respective set of frequency domain responses for at least one first non-collocated receiver of the plurality of non-collocated receivers (see Omeragic in view of Donderici as applied to claim 3, e.g., Omeragic, e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraphs 37-56; note paragraph 37 in particular, Fig. 3 is a flowchart of a method 100 for determining thicknesses of individual casings (e.g., 30, 32, 34) among a plurality of nested casings (e.g., 12) using a set of induction multi-spacing and multi-frequency measurements; also see Fig. 3, step 108 and paragraph 56 in particular, to determine thickness of the individual casings, e.g., outer casing 30, middle casing 32, and inner casing 34; note the method of Fig. 3 is implemented using processor 22/memory 24 of Omeragic’s monitoring device 18 (Fig. 1); also see paragraph 31; also see, e.g., Fig. 13 and paragraph 61; Omeragic’s first casing may be, for example, casing 34).
Regarding claim 11, Omeragic in view of Donderici discloses wherein: determining the respective size of each casing of the plurality of nested casings further comprises determining the size of a second casing of the plurality of nested casings based on the respective set of frequency domain responses for at least one second non-collocated receiver of the plurality of non-collocated receivers; and the first casing is nested within the second casing (see Omeragic in view of Donderici as applied to claim 9, e.g., Omeragic, e.g., Fig. 3 and paragraphs 37-56; note paragraph 37 in particular, Fig. 3 is a flowchart of a method 100 for determining thicknesses of individual casings (e.g., 30, 32, 34) among a plurality of nested casings (e.g., 12) using a set of induction multi-spacing and multi-frequency measurements; also see Fig. 3, step 108 and paragraph 56 in particular, to determine thickness of the individual casings, e.g., outer casing 30, middle casing 32, and inner casing 34; note the method of Fig. 3 is implemented using processor 22/memory 24 of Omeragic’s monitoring device 18 (Fig. 1); also see paragraph 31; also see, e.g., Fig. 13 and paragraph 61; Omeragic’s second casing may be, for example, casing 32, with casing 34 being nested within casing 32).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 12-16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4,843,317 to Dew relates to an electromagnetic device for the measurement of tubular goods wall thickness which includes additional coil sensing structure for defining the complete magnetic field distribution as between the main sensing coil and the tubular goods so that a direct indication of wall thickness can be obtained with the field strength measurements.
US 2010/0017137 to Legendre et al. relates to a method for electromagnetically measuring physical parameters of a pipe; see, e.g., paragraphs 18, 21, 27, 43.
WO 2016/007307 to Donderici et al. relates to a pipe inspection tool for a wellbore; see, e.g., paragraphs 87, 89.
US 2017/0167241 to Wu et al. relates to multi-string corrosion monitoring method; see, e.g., paragraph 22.
US 2021/0239874 to Fouda relates to a method and system for estimating parameters of pipes; see, e.g., paragraphs 45-46, claims 1, 9.
US 2017/0114628 to Khalaj Amineh et al. relates to electromagnetic (EM) casing inspection tools; see, e.g., paragraphs 14, 27-28.
Larbi Zeghlache, Mohamed , Bazaid, Abdulaziz , Hill, Freeman , and Nacer Guergueb. "Comprehensive Casing Corrosion Inspection Using Multi-Frequency Array EM Technology." Paper presented at the SPE International Oilfield Corrosion Conference and Exhibition, Virtual, June 2021 relates to a multi-frequency array EM pipe inspection tool to accurately estimate the individual wall thicknesses of as many as five concentric pipes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL R MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1964. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lee Rodak, can be reached at (571)270-5628. 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.
/DANIEL R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858