Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Application 18/798,573 filed on August 08, 2024 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/08/2024 and 12/18/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
(downhole wellbore borehole) SAME (transmitt$3 transmit$3 send$3 transceiv$3)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 17, the phrases “wherein a processor is configured to, process, based on a set of scaling weights, the response signal measured by each of the M receiver coils derived from the excitation signals emitted from each of the transmitter coils to create a processed response, wherein the set of scaling weights is unique to a radial depth of the wellbore tubular” is indefinite for the reason below. The Examiner cannot interpret if the how the scaling weight is used in junction with the receiver data to determine defects in a wellbore. It is not clear how using these items as well as the processor to determine defects as it seems the ending limitations only describing having depth information. The Examiner will interpret as having receiver data to help determine depth within a wellbore.
Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are also rejected to as they depend on claims 1, 12, and 17 respectively.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (USPGPub 20200049850) in view of Sun et al (US Pat No 12092782).
PNG
media_image1.png
648
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prior Art: Liu
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a downhole tool (105) to identify a defect in a wellbore tubular (60), the downhole tool comprising: a transmitter array (120) of N transmitter coils (par 45 discloses in ring formation. Therefore at least coils), wherein a moment of each of the N transmitter coils are to point in a different azimuthal direction (par 83 discloses transmitting beams in different azimuthal directions), wherein each of the N transmitter coils is configured to emit an excitation signal independent of the other N-1 transmitter coils (par 7 discloses transmitter element is individually controlled. Therefore the excitation signal is independent of one another); and a receiver array (130) of M receiver coils (par 45 discloses being ring elements), wherein a moment of each of the M receiver coils are to point in a different azimuthal direction (pars 9 and 83 discloses obtaining different azimuthal directions. Therefore the receiver points to different azimuthal direction) , wherein each of the M receiver coils is configured to measure a response signal derived from the excitation signal from each of the N transmitter coils (83 discloses obtaining different azimuthal directions), wherein a processor (110) is configured to, process, the response signal measured by each of the M receiver coils derived from the excitation signals emitted from each of the transmitter coils to create a processed response (par 119 discloses determining property of a wellbore and par 39 discloses determining potential defects).Liu does not fully disclose wherein a processor (110) is configured to, process, based on a set of scaling weights, wherein the set of scaling weights is unique to a radial depth of the wellbore tubular.
However, Sun discloses based on a set of scaling weights (col 6 lines 65- col 7 lines 30 discloses scalar weights determined by the users), wherein the set of scaling weights is unique (col 9 lines 53-65 discloses may be different. Therefore unique) to a radial depth of the wellbore tubular (claim 1 discloses using scalar weights and determining by a processor an arrival time and velocity of the wave. Therefore, this would be used to determine at least depth and a path for a drilling system).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liu in view of Sun in order to determine the best method of dealing and finding defects within a borehole.
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses a method comprising: conveying a downhole tool (105) into a wellbore having a wellbore tubular (60), the downhole tool having a transmitter array (120) of N transmitter coils (par 45 discloses in ring formation. Therefore at least coils) and a receiver array (130) of M receiver coils (par 45 discloses being ring elements), wherein a moment of each of the N transmitter coils points in a different azimuthal direction (par 83 discloses transmitting beams in different azimuthal directions) and a moment of each of the M receiver coils points in a different azimuthal direction (pars 9 and 83 discloses obtaining different azimuthal directions. Therefore the receiver points to different azimuthal direction); emitting, by each of the N transmitter coils, an excitation signal independent of the other N-1 transmitter coils (83 discloses obtaining different azimuthal directions); measuring, by each of the M receiver coils, a response signal derived from the excitation signal; and processing (using 110), based on the response signal measured by each of the M receiver coils derived from the excitation signals (83 discloses obtaining different azimuthal directions) emitted from each of the transmitter coils to create a processed response (par 119 discloses determining property of a wellbore and par 39 discloses determining potential defects).Liu does not fully disclose processing based on a set of scaling weights wherein the set of scaling weights is unique to a radial depth of the wellbore tubular.
However, Sun discloses processing based on a set of scaling weights (col 6 lines 65- col 7 lines 30 discloses scalar weights determined by the users) wherein the set of scaling weights is unique (col 9 lines 53-65 discloses may be different. Therefore unique) to a radial depth of the wellbore tubular (claim 1 discloses using scalar weights and determining by a processor an arrival time and velocity of the wave. Therefore, this would be used to determine at least depth and a path for a drilling system). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liu in view of Sun in order to determine the best method of dealing and finding defects within a borehole.
Regarding claim 17, Liu discloses a system comprising (shown in figs 1A- 12B): a downhole tool (105) to identify a defect in a wellbore tubular (60), the downhole tool comprising, a transmitter array (120) of N transmitter coils (par 45 discloses in ring formation. Therefore at least coils), wherein a moment of each of the N transmitter coils are to point in a different azimuthal direction (par 83 discloses transmitting beams in different azimuthal directions), wherein each of the N transmitter coils is configured to emit an excitation signal independent of the other N-1 transmitter coils (par 7 discloses transmitter element is individually controlled. Therefore, the excitation signal is independent of one another); and a receiver array (130) of M receiver coils (par 45 discloses being ring elements), wherein a moment of each of the M receiver coils are to point in a different azimuthal direction (pars 9 and 83 discloses obtaining different azimuthal directions. Therefore the receiver points to different azimuthal direction), wherein each of the M receiver coils is configured to measure a response signal derived from the excitation signal from each of the N transmitter coils (83 discloses obtaining different azimuthal directions), a processor (110); and a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by the processor (known in the art) to cause, the response signal measured by each of the M receiver coils derived from the excitation signals emitted from each of the transmitter coils to create a processed response, (par 119 discloses determining property of a wellbore and par 39 discloses determining potential defects).Liu does not fully disclose the processor to, process, based on a set of scaling weights and wherein the set of scaling weights is unique to a radial depth of the wellbore tubular.
However, Sun discloses the processor to, process, based on a set of scaling weights (col 6 lines 65- col 7 lines 30 discloses scalar weights determined by the users) and wherein the set of scaling weights is unique (col 9 lines 53-65 discloses may be different. Therefore unique) to a radial depth of the wellbore tubular (claim 1 discloses using scalar weights and determining by a processor an arrival time and velocity of the wave. Therefore, this would be used to determine at least depth and a path for a drilling system). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liu in view of Sun in order to determine the best method of dealing and finding defects within a borehole.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (USPGPub 20200049850) in view of Sun et al (US Pat No 12092782) in further view of Batarseh et al (US Pat No 12228002).
Regarding claim 5, Liu in view of Sun does not fully discloses wherein a corrective action is to be performed to correct the defect in the wellbore tubular, wherein the corrective action comprises at least one of repairing or replacing a section of the wellbore tubular with the defect.
However, Batarseh discloses wherein a corrective action is to be performed to correct the defect in the wellbore tubular, wherein the corrective action comprises at least one of repairing or replacing a section of the wellbore tubular with the defect (col 6 lines 46-60 discloses repairing a tubular member disposed in a wellbore). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liu in view of Sun in further view of Batarseh in order to determine and remove defects in the borehole.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-11, 13-16, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a downhole tool to identify a defect in a wellbore tubular, the downhole tool comprising: wherein the processor configured to process the response signal comprises the processor configured to, construct a training data matrix corresponding to a reference profile of a number of reference profiles of the wellbore tubular; compute a set of scaling weights such that a product of multiplying the set of scaling weights with the training data matrix matches the reference profile, wherein the processed response comprises an actual data matrix; and construct a scaled actual data matrix based on application of the set of scaling weights to the actual data matrix in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 3 and 4 are also objected as they depend on claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a downhole tool to identify a defect in a wellbore tubular, the downhole tool comprising: wherein the processor is configured to, construct a training data matrix corresponding to a reference profile of a number of reference profiles of the wellbore tubular; compute a set of scaling weights such that a product of multiplying the set of scaling weights with the training data matrix matches the reference profile, wherein the processed response comprises an actual data matrix; construct a scaled actual data matrix based on application of the set of scaling weights to the actual data matrix; and generate a focused response of the wellbore tubular based on the scaled data matrix, wherein identification of the defect in the wellbore tubular comprises identification of the defect in the wellbore tubular based on the focused response in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 7-11 are also objected as they depend on claim 6.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a method comprising: wherein processing the response signal comprises, constructing a training data matrix corresponding to a reference profile of a number of reference profiles of the wellbore tubular; computing a set of scaling weights such that a product of multiplying the set of scaling weights with the training data matrix matches the reference profile, wherein the processed response comprises an actual data matrix; and constructing a scaled actual data matrix based on application of the set of scaling weights to the actual data matrix in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 14-16 are also objected as they depend on claim 13.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a system comprising: wherein the instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to the response signal comprises instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to, construct a training data matrix corresponding to a reference profile of a number of reference profiles of the wellbore tubular; compute a set of scaling weights such that a product of multiplying the set of scaling weights with the training data matrix matches the reference profile, wherein the processed response comprises an actual data matrix; and construct a scaled actual data matrix based on application of the set of scaling weights to the actual data matrix in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 18-20 are also objected as they depend on claim 17.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al (USPGPub 20210396126): discloses downhole tool with different azimuthal.
Khalaj Amineh et al (USPGPub 20190003920): discloses detecting different defects inside wellbore.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC E HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/DOMINIC E HAWKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights