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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (WO2018/125058).
With respect to claim 1, Wang discloses generating a tube wave in a piping disposed in a wellbore ([0023], lines 20-23); creating a time-domain forward model with one or more parameters to represent the tube wave in the piping ([0030], lines 1, 4-5); transforming the time-domain forward model to model the tube wave as a pressure wave ([0023], lines 14-15; [0030], line 7-8); evaluating a loss function of the time-domain forward model ([0030], lines 9-10; [0035], lines 3-6); and identifying a second set of parameters from the loss function to adjust the one or more parameters ([0030], lines 13-15).
With respect to claim 2, Wang discloses the time-domain forward model is created before generating the tube wave ([0030], lines 3-4).
With respect to claim 3, Wang discloses the time-domain forward model is a numerical model simulating a transient fluid dynamic ([0031]-[0032]).
With respect to claim 6, Wang discloses the loss function is a sum of absolute errors, a sum of squared errors ([0035], lines 4-6), or a Pearson correlation coefficient.
With respect to claim 8, Wang discloses comparing the loss function with one or more iterations of the loss function ([0030], lines 9-10).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Wu (GB 2444832).
Wang teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach comparing the loss function with a predetermined threshold.
Wu teaches comparing the loss function with a predetermined threshold (Pg 10, lines 31-33). 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 Wang with the threshold of Wu since such a modification would have ensured sufficient accuracy with the minimal amount of necessary processing power.
Claims 9, 11-13, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Mayo (WO 2017/223007).
With respect to claim 9, Wang teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach the generating the tube wave is performed by changing a flow rate of at least one pump, neutralizing all pumps, opening one or more surface valves, or closing the one or more surface valves.
Mayo teaches changing a flow rate of at least one pump, neutralizing all pumps, opening one or more surface valves, or closing the one or more surface valves ([0073], lines 11-16). 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 Wang with the pressure wave generation of Mayo since such a modification would have provided a pressure wave relating to normal well operations.
With respect to claim 11, Wang teaches an information handling system configured to create a time-domain forward model with one or more parameters to represent the tube wave in the piping ([0030], lines 1, 4-5); transform the time-domain forward model to model the tube wave as a pressure wave ([0023], lines 14-15; [0030], line 7-8); evaluate a loss function of the time-domain forward model ([0030], lines 9-10; [0035], lines 3-6); and identify a second set of parameters from the loss function to adjust the one or more parameters ([0030], lines 13-15). However, it does not teach a plurality of pumps, wherein in one or more of the plurality of pumps may generate a tube wave in a piping disposed in a wellbore.
Wu teaches a plurality of pumps ([0092], lines 2-3), wherein in one or more of the plurality of pumps may generate a tube wave in a piping disposed in a wellbore ([0073], lines 11-16). 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 Wang with the pressure wave generation of Mayo since such a modification would have provided a pressure wave relating to normal well operations.
With respect to claim 12, Wang teaches the time-domain forward model is created before generating the tube wave ([0030], lines 3-4).
With respect to claim 13, Wang teaches the time-domain forward model is a numerical model simulating a transient fluid dynamic ([0031]-[0032]).
With respect to claim 16, Wang teaches the loss function is a sum of absolute errors, a sum of squared errors ([0035], lines 4-6), or a Pearson correlation coefficient.
With respect to claim 18, Wang teaches comparing the loss function with one or more iterations of the loss function ([0030], lines 9-10).
With respect to claim 19, Wang teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach the generating the tube wave is performed by changing a flow rate of at least one pump, neutralizing all pumps, opening one or more surface valves, or closing the one or more surface valves.
Mayo teaches changing a flow rate of at least one pump, neutralizing all pumps, opening one or more surface valves, or closing the one or more surface valves ([0073], lines 11-16). 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 Wang with the pressure wave generation of Mayo since such a modification would have provided a pressure wave relating to normal well operations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 10, 14, 15, and 20 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
Prosecution Insights