DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 3, 4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guner et al. (WO 2019/005016 A1, Pub. Date January 3, 2019, herein Guner) in view of Frey (US Patent 9,784,880 B2, Pub. Date October 10, 2017).
Regarding Claim 1, Guner teaches:
A reconfigurable electromagnetic pipe inspection tool for inspecting wellbore pipes, the tool comprising (Electromagnetic logging tool 106 is used to inspect for pipe corrosion. Logging tool 106 is reconfigurable because different transmit antennas 118/204 can be configured to transmit when the logging tool is at different depths within the wellbore so that the desired electromagnetic penetration depths X1, X2, X3 can be targeted. The spacing between one of the transmitting antennas 118/204 and the receiving antennas 120/205 determines the penetration depths. When logging tool 106 is put into a different borehole with pipes at different depths longitudinally and radially, then the transmit antennas need to be reconfigured, i.e., different transmit antennas 118/204 can be configured to transmit at different depths of the new borehole so that the desired electromagnetic penetration depths can be targeted.; see Fig 1-3 & 8 and [1:17-19], [3:29-4:7]):
a signal generator for exciting the transmitter coil; and receiver circuitry for measuring voltage across the receiver coil (Internal tool controller 202 is a "signal generator" - that excites the transmitter coils 118/204 and measures the phase difference and attenuation between the transmitted and received carrier signals - "receiver circuity" - by measuring the voltage across the receiver coils 120/205.; see Fig 1-3 & [4:8-20]), wherein
modeling a simulated tool in at least one pipe inspection scenario using a computer model based upon a well plan to obtain synthetic data, wherein the at least one modeled pipe inspection scenario comprises nominal pipe parameters from the well plan with at least one defect on at least one pipe (Before logging is started in step 808, a well plan - "well plan" - is obtained in step 802 so that zones with distinct pipe arrangements can be determined. In step 804 the processing unit models the pipe arrangement for each zone and simulates the response - "obtain synthetic data" - of each TRF combination of the tool - "modeling a simulated tool in at least one pipe inspection scenario using a computer model based upon a well plan" - to the defect profiles having single-pipe defects - "the at least one modeled pipe inspection scenario comprises nominal pipe parameters from the well plan with at least one defect on at least one pipe."; see Fig 8 & [4:8-5:9], [8:31-10:12], [11:17-22]);
analyzing the synthetic data to obtain performance metrics of the simulated tool wherein the performance metrics comprise a distance between the transmitter coil and the receiver coil (The slope (i.e., sensitivity) is determined - "analyzing the synthetic data" - at one TRF combination - “performance metrics of the simulated tool”, which comprises particular spacing between the given transmit and receive antennas.; see Fig 8 & [4:8-5:9], [8:31-10:12], [11:17-22]);
adjusting the simulated tool parameters to optimize the performance metrics based on the at least one modeled pipe inspection scenario, wherein the optimized performance metrics comprise an optimized distance between the transmitter coil and the receiver coil (In Step 804, the slope (i.e., sensitivity) is determined at other TRF combinations, that comprise other particular spacings between the given transmit and receive antennas. Each TRF is a "simulated tool parameter" and switching between different TRF combinations to test them is "adjusting". In step 806, the processing unit selects the TRF combination for each zone that has the best sensitivity - "optimize the performance metrics based on the at least one modeled pipe inspection scenario". A TRF combination, comprises a particular spacing between the given transmit and receive antennas.; see Fig 8 & [4:8-5:9], [8:31-10:12], [11:17-22]);
Guner teaches in [3:29-4:7] that a TRF combination is a combination of the particular carrier frequencies of the transmit and receive antennas and the particular spacing between the given transmit and receive antennas.
Guner does not teach:
at least one first module housing a transmitter coil, the first module having a first end and a second opposing end, wherein the first and second ends each have a connector thereon;
at least one second module housing a receiver coil, the second module having a first end and a second opposing end, wherein the first and second ends of the second module each have a connector thereon;
the modules of the reconfigurable electromagnetic pipe inspection tool are connected based upon a simulated performance of the tool in a well in which the tool is be deployed prior to running the tool;
adjusting the modules of the reconfigurable electromagnetic pipe inspection tool according to the adjusted simulated tool parameters optimizing the performance metrics.
However, Frey teaches:
The Examiner is combining Guner in view of Frey by applying the well-known methodology of Guner that is applied within the wellbore art to the existing downhole tool of Frey.
The length of the BHA tool(s) 65 of Frey can be determined based on the simulation of TRF responses that show the best sensitivity with respect to the defect profile.
at least one first module housing a transmitter coil, the first module having a first end and a second opposing end, wherein the first and second ends each have a connector thereon (Second sub 56 - "first module" - houses second transmitter 57 - "transmitter coil" - and has a left end - "first end" - and a right end - "second opposing end", which each are threaded - "connectors".; see Fig 2A & [3:31-35]);
at least one second module housing a receiver coil, the second module having a first end and a second opposing end, wherein the first and second ends of the second module each have a connector thereon (First sub 51 - second module" - houses receiver/coil 53 - "receiver coil" and has a left end - "first end" - and a right end - "second opposing end", which each are threaded - "connectors".; see Fig 2A & [3:31-35]);
the modules of the reconfigurable electromagnetic pipe inspection tool are connected based upon a simulated performance of the tool in a well in which the tool is be deployed prior to running the tool (The first and second subs 51 and 56 - "modules" - may be axially spaced apart substantially any suitable distance to achieve a desired measurement depth (radially from the tool). The tools have to be connected prior to being run downhole, and therefore the desired measurement depth has to be known before the tools are connected.; see Fig 2 & [3:28-35]);
adjusting the modules of the reconfigurable electromagnetic pipe inspection tool according to the adjusted simulated tool parameters optimizing the performance metrics (The first and second subs 51 and 56 - "modules" - may be axially spaced apart substantially any suitable distance to achieve a desired measurement depth (radially from the tool).; see Fig 2 & [3:28-35]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the well-known method of Guner to the well-known structure of Frey which has at least one first module housing a transmitter coil, the first module having a first end and a second opposing end, wherein the first and second ends each have a connector thereon; at least one second module housing a receiver coil, the second module having a first end and a second opposing end, wherein the first and second ends of the second module each have a connector thereon; the modules of the reconfigurable electromagnetic pipe inspection tool are connected based upon a simulated performance of the tool in a well in which the tool is be deployed prior to running the tool; adjusting the modules of the reconfigurable electromagnetic pipe inspection tool according to the adjusted simulated tool parameters optimizing the performance metrics because it allows for the spacing apart of modules substantially any suitable distance to achieve a desired measurement depth radially from the tool as taught by Frey [3:28-35], especially in the case that no TRF combination of Guner provides a sufficient sensitivity level that exceeds a certain threshold based on the anticipated of logging noise as seen in [9:17-28] of Guner.
Regarding Claim 2, Guner teaches:
the reconfigurable tool parameters comprise at least one of: transmitter-receiver spacing, length of the transmitter, length of the receiver, excitation current power, excitation current frequency, excitation pulse duration, excitation pulse slew rate, decay response recording time duration, decay response sampling rate, or logging speed (A TRF combination is a combination of the particular carrier frequencies of the transmit and receive antennas – “excitation current frequency” – and the particular spacing between the given transmit and receive antennas – “transmitter-receiver spacing”.; see [3:29-4:7]).
Regarding Claim 3, Guner does not teach the limitations.
However, Frey teaches:
at least one spacer module to adjust spacing between the transmitter and receiver coils, the spacer module having a first end and a second opposing end, wherein the first and second ends of the spacer module each have a connector thereon, wherein the first end of the spacer module is connected to the first module, and wherein the second end of the spacer module is connected to the second module (BHA tool(s) 65 - "spacer module" - adjust the spacing between transmitter coil 57/T2 on sub 56 and receiver coil 53/R1 on sub 51, and has a left end - "first end" - and a right end - "second opposing end" - with threading - "connectors". The left end of BHA tool(s) 65 is connected to sub 56, and the right end of BHA tool(s) 65 is connected to sub 51. The length of the BHA tool(s) is selected to achieve a desired measurement depth.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to applying the well-known method of Guner to the well-known structure of Frey which has at least one spacer module to adjust spacing between the transmitter and receiver coils, the spacer module having a first end and a second opposing end, wherein the first and second ends of the spacer module each have a connector thereon, wherein the first end of the spacer module is connected to the first module, and wherein the second end of the spacer module is connected to the second module because it allows for the spacing apart of modules substantially any suitable distance to achieve a desired measurement depth radially from the tool as taught by Frey [3:28-35], especially in the case that no TRF combination of Guner provides a sufficient sensitivity level that exceeds a certain threshold based on the anticipation of logging noise as seen in [9:17-28] of Guner.
Regarding Claim 4, Guner does not teach the limitations.
However, Frey teaches:
the connectors of the first and second modules are at least one of a threaded connectors, locking mechanisms or snap mechanisms (female thread on the left side of 51 and male thread on the right side of 51, Fig 2A; female thread on the left side of 56 and male thread on the right side of 56, Fig 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the well-known method of Guner to the well-known structure of Frey which has the connectors are at least one of a threaded connectors, locking mechanisms or snap mechanisms because threaded connectors are a known technique for downhole pipes ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of connecting two pipes while preventing the pipes from leaking.
Regarding Claim 6, Guner does not teach the limitations.
However, Frey teaches:
the tool is assembled by stacking the first, second, and spacer modules in a pre-specified order based in part on a well plan (Electromagnetic measurement tool 50 is assembled by stacking sub 56, BHA tool 65 and sub 51 in order. The length of the BHA tool(s) 65 is decided based on a desired measurement depth, which is based on a well plan that determines desired measurement depths of interest.; see Fig 2A & [3:28-35]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to applying the well-known method of Guner to the well-known structure of Frey by having the tool is assembled by stacking the first, second, and spacer modules in a pre-specified order based in part on a well plan because it allows for the spacing apart of modules substantially any suitable distance to achieve a desired measurement depth radially from the tool as taught by Frey [3:28-35], especially in the case that no TRF combination of Guner provides a sufficient sensitivity level that exceeds a certain threshold based on the anticipation of logging noise as seen in [9:17-28] of Guner.
Regarding Claim 7, Guner teaches:
the reconfigurable tool parameters are adjusted based on a well plan; and the well plan comprises information on at least one of nominal outer diameters of wellbore pipes, nominal thicknesses of the wellbore pipes, a start and end depth of the wellbore pipes, and the types of metals of the wellbore pipes (In step 806, TRF combinations are selected for each zone, and the carrier frequencies of the transmitters and receivers - "reconfigurable tool parameters" - are adjusted. In step 802 a well plan is obtained that includes diameter of pipes, thickness of pipes, material type.; see Fig 8 & [3:18-23], [9:5-10:12]).
Regarding Claim 8, Guner teaches:
a determination to excite certain transmitter coils or to acquire from certain receiver coils is made prior to running the tool in a well based on a well plan (Before logging is started in step 808, a well plan is obtained in step 802 so that zones with distinct pipe arrangements can be determined. Then in step 804, the TRF combinations are simulated and in step 806, the TRF combination with the best sensitivity is determined for each zone. Then the tool is run downhole and logging is started in Step 808. After the tool is run downhole, electromagnetic logging tool 106 includes an internal tool controller 202 that triggers transmissions at selected carrier frequencies from selected transmit antennas 204 and captures responsive measurements from selected receive antennas 205.; see Fig 8 & [4:9-11]], [8:31-10:12]).
Guner does not teach:
an array of modules comprising transmitter or receiver coils;
However, Frey teaches:
an array of modules comprising transmitter or receiver coils (First & second subs 51 & 56 – “an array of modules” – comprise first & second transmitters 52 & 57 and first and second receivers 53 & 58.; see Fig 2A & [3:28-35]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to applying the well-known method of Guner to the well-known structure of Frey by having an array of modules comprising transmitter or receiver coils because it allows for the spacing apart of modules substantially any suitable distance to achieve a desired measurement depth radially from the tool as taught by Frey [3:28-35], especially in the case that no TRF combination of Guner provides a sufficient sensitivity level that exceeds a certain threshold based on the anticipation of logging noise as seen in [9:17-28] of Guner.
Regarding Claim 9, Guner teaches:
the tool is conveyed downhole using a wireline, slickline, tractor or drill pipe (Electromagnetic logging tool 106 is conveyed downhole by a wireline cable 104.; see Fig 1 & [2:29-3:1]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guner in view of Frey and further in view of Chau et al. (US Patent 6,655,464 B2, Pub. Date December 2, 2003, herein Chau).
Guner does not teach the limitations of the Claim.
However, Frey teaches the use of wired drill pipe to transmit data to the surface while drilling in Col[18:54-58]:
each of the first module (56, Fig 2A), second module (51, Fig 2A), and spacer module (65, Fig 2A, see explanation above)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the well-known method of Guner to the well-known structure of Frey which has the first module, second module, and spacer module because it allows for the spacing apart of modules substantially any suitable distance to achieve a desired measurement depth radially from the tool and as taught by Frey [3:28-35].
Guner does not teach and Frey does not specifically teach an example of wired drill pipe:
a power or communication line extending there-through; and
sockets at each end to terminate the power or communication line.
However, Chau teaches:
a power or communication line extending there-through; and sockets at each end to terminate the power or communication line (Insulated conductor 112 - "power or communication line" - extends through the pipe section/module 28a. Adapter fittings 302, 304 and 306 - "sockets" - terminate the insulated conductor 112.; see Fig 8 & 10 and [6:46-55], [17:4-10]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Guner and Frey in view of Chau by having a power or communication line extending there-through; and sockets at each end to terminate the power or communication line because it avoids the use of batteries in a downhole environment as taught by Chau [3:23-45] and because using wired drill pipe is a known technique that yields the predictable result of transmitting communication between the surface and downhole tools so that commands can be sent from the surface and information can be obtained at the surface in real-time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAHUL MAINI whose telephone number is (571)270-1099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9am-4pm, EST.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/R.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 06/14/2026
/A. A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights