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
Claim 7 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 6. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 17 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 16. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Large (2011/0138903) in view of Li (2022/0049600).
With respect to claim 1, Large teaches disposing an acoustic logging tool into a borehole ([0019], lines 2-3), wherein the acoustic logging tool is configured to: transmit one or more acoustic waves into the borehole with one or more transmitters ([0037], lines 3-11); and receive one or more waveforms from the borehole or surrounding casing with an array of receivers, wherein one or more receivers from the array of receivers are in a shifted position ([0020], lines 4-6; [0036], lines 1-3) and the other receivers are at an in-line position ([0029], lines 1-6); calculating mud properties by comparing waveforms from receivers at the shifted position to waveforms from receivers at the in-line positions ([0029], lines 6-8). While it teaches comparing the waveforms of the receivers in the inline and shifted positions ([0029], lines 6-8), and it teaches the need for borehole measurements due to casing wear and teach and problems with the cement conditions ([0005]-[0006]), it does not specifically teach performing cement evaluation.
Li teaches performing cement evaluation ([0020], lines 9-14; [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Large with the cement evaluation of Li since such a modification would have allowed for correction or prevention of poor data due to cementation issues.
With respect to claim 11, Large teaches an acoustic logging tool disposed in a borehole ([0019], lines 2-3), wherein the acoustic logging tool is configured to: transmit one or more acoustic waves into the borehole with one or more transmitters ([0037], lines 3-11); and receive one or more waveforms from the borehole or surrounding casing with an array of receivers, wherein one or more receivers from the array of receivers are in a shifted position ([0020], lines 4-6; [0036], lines 1-3) and the other receivers are at an in-line position ([0029], lines 1-6); an information handling system ([0027]) configured to calculate mud properties by comparing waveforms from receivers at the shifted position to waveforms from receivers at the in-line positions ([0029], lines 6-8). While it teaches comparing the waveforms of the receivers in the inline and shifted positions ([0029], lines 6-8), and it teaches the need for borehole measurements due to casing wear and teach and problems with the cement conditions ([0005]-[0006]), it does not specifically teach performing cement evaluation.
Li teaches performing cement evaluation ([0020], lines 9-14; [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Large with the cement evaluation of Li since such a modification would have allowed for correction or prevention of poor data due to cementation issues.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-16, 18-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-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, 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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645