Office Action 2: Notice of Allowance (2025-04-09)

CLAIMS:
IN THE CLAIMS

Please amend the claims as follows:

Assignee: Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

1\. (Currently Amended) A method for downhole fault detection in a well system, comprising:transmitting a spread spectrum time domain reflectometry (SSTDR) signal downhole via a well electrical cable of the well system, wherein a plurality of well devices are coupled with the well electrical cable and the well electrical cable includes cable lines and downhole connectors;
receiving, from the well electrical cable, a reflected SSTDR signal associated with the transmitted SSTDR signal;
detecting a downhole fault and determining a depth downhole of the detected downhole fault and a type of the detected downhole fault ased, at least in part, on a signal analysis of the reflected SSTDR signal and the transmitted SSTDR signal; and
determining whether the detected downhole fault is in at least one section of the cable lines, in at least one of the downhole connectors, or in at least one of the plurality of well devices based, at least in part, on the depth downhole of the detected downhole fault and the type of the detected downhole fault.
2\. (Cancelled)
3\. (Cancelled)
4\. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
correlating the reflected SSTDR signal with the transmitted SSTDR signal; and
performing the signal analysis based, at least in part, on the correlation of the reflected SSTDR signal with the transmitted SSTDR signal.

Assignee: Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
5\. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing the signal analysis of the reflected SSTDR signal and the transmitted SSTDR signal using a machine learning algorithm.
6\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing spread spectrum signal analysis on the reflected SSTDR signal and the transmitted SSTDR signal to determine real-time SSTDR data for the well system;
accessing historical SSTDR data for the well system; and
detecting the downhole fault and determining the depth downhole of the detected downhole fault and the type of the detected downhole fault based, at least in part, on the real-time SSTDR data and the historical SSTDR data for the well system.
7\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 6, further comprising:
accessing historical SSTDR data for one or more additional well systems; and
detecting the downhole fault and determining the depth downhole of the detected downhole fault and the type of the detected downhole fault based, at least in part, on the real-time SSTDR data for the well system, the historical SSTDR data for the well system, and the historical SSTDR data for the one or more additional well systems.
8\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the detected downhole fault isin a first well device of the plurality of well devices based, at least in part, on a-thedepth downhole of the detected downhole fault and a-thetype of the detected downhole fault; and
determining which component of a plurality of components of the first well device is faulty based, at least in part, on the type of the detected downhole fault and one or more signal signatures detected in at least the reflected SSTDR signal.

Assignee: Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

9\. (Currently Amended) An apparatus for downhole fault detection in a well system, comprising:one or more processors; and
a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to:
transmit a spread spectrum time domain reflectometry (SSTDR) signal downhole via a well electrical cable of the well system, wherein a plurality of well devices are coupled with the well electrical cable and the well electrical cable includes cable lines and downhole connectors;
receive, from the well electrical cable, a reflected SSTDR signal associated with the transmitted SSTDR signal;
detect a downhole fault and determine a depth downhole of the detected downhole fault and a type of the detected downhole fault based, at least in part, on a signal analysis of the reflected SSTDR signal and the transmitted SSTDR signal; and
determine whether the detected downhole fault is in at least one section of the cable lines, in at least one of the downhole connectors, or in at least one of the plurality of well devices based, at least in part, on the depth downhole of the detected downhole fault and the type of the detected downhole fault.

10\. (Cancelled)

11\. (Cancelled)

12\. (Original) The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to:correlate the reflected SSTDR signal with the transmitted SSTDR signal; and

Assignee: Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. perform the signal analysis based, at least in part, on the correlation of the reflected SSTDR signal with the transmitted SSTDR signal.

13\. (Original) The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to:perform the signal analysis of the reflected SSTDR signal and the transmitted SSTDR signal using a machine learning algorithm.

14\. (Currently Amended) The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to:perform spread spectrum signal analysis on the reflected SSTDR signal and the transmitted SSTDR signal to determine real-time SSTDR data for the well system;
access historical SSTDR data for the well system; and
detect the downhole fault and determining the depth downhole of the detected downhole fault and the type of the detected downhole fault ased, at least in part, on the real-time SSTDR data and the historical SSTDR data for the well system.

15\. (Currently Amended) The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to:determine that the detected downhole fault is in a first well device of the plurality of well devices based, at least in part, on a-thedepth downhole of the detected downhole fault and athetype of the detected downhole fault; and
determine which component of a plurality of components of the first well device is faulty based, at least in part, on the type of the detected downhole fault and one or more signal signatures detected in at least the reflected SSTDR signal.

16\. (Currently Amended) A well system for hydrocarbon recovery, comprising:a well electrical cable including cable lines and downhole connectors;

Assignee: Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.a plurality of well devices coupled with the well electrical cable; and
a spread spectrum time domain reflectometry (SSTDR) apparatus coupled with the well electrical cable, the SSTDR apparatus configured to:
transmit an SSTDR signal downhole via -a-the\_well electrical cable of the well system;
receive, from the well electrical cable, a reflected SSTDR signal associated with the transmitted SSTDR signal;
detect a downhole fault and determine a depth downhole of the detected downhole fault and a type of the detected downhole fault based, at least in part, on a signal analysis of the reflected SSTDR signal and the transmitted SSTDR signal; and determine whether the detected downhole fault is in at least one section of the cable lines, in at least one of the downhole connectors, or in at least one of the plurality of well devices based, at least in part, on the depth downhole of the detected downhole fault and the type of the detected downhole fault.

17\. (Cancelled)

18\. (Cancelled)

19\. (Currently Amended) The well system of claim 16, wherein the SSTDR apparatus is further configured to:perform spread spectrum signal analysis on the reflected SSTDR signal and the transmitted SSTDR signal to determine real-time SSTDR data for the well system;
access historical SSTDR data for the well system; and
detect the downhole fault and determine the depth downhole of the detected downhole fault and the type of the detected downhole fault

Assignee: Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. fault is detected based, at least in part, on the real-time SSTDR data and the historical SSTDR data for the well system.

20\. (Currently Amended) The well system of claim 16, wherein the SSTDR apparatus is further configured to:determine that the detected downhole fault isin a first well device of the plurality of well devices based, at least in part, on a-thedepth downhole of the detected downhole fault and athetype of the downhole fault; and
determine which component of a plurality of components of the first well device is faulty based, at least in part, on the type of the detected downhole fault and one or more signal signatures detected in at least the reflected SSTDR signal.

OFFICE ACTION:
Notice of Allowance
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In regards to claims 1, 9 and 16, applicant’s arguments filed on January 21, 2025, with respect to claim(s) 1, 9 and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive [see applicant’ arguments pg. 9 L. 7-30, pg. 10 L. 1-2].  Therefore the claim(s) is/are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee.  Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
Applicant has carefully reviewed and considered the Office Action mailed on 10/22/2024, and the references cited therewith.
Claims 1, 6-9, 14-16 and 19-20 are amended. Claims 2-3, 10-11 and 17-18 are cancelled. No new claims are added herein. As a result, claims 1, 4-9, 12-16 and 19-20 are now pending in this application.
2 Re
j
ection of the Claims
Claims 2-3, 8, 10-11 and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as allegedly being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention. Claims 2-3, 10-11 and 17-18 have been cancelled and therefore the rejection of claims 2-3, 10-11 and 17-18 is moot. Applicant has amended claims 8, 15-16 and 19-20 as suggested to overcome this rejection.
03 Re
j
ection of the Claims
Claims 1-4 and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Pacault et al. (US-2005/0046591, hereinafter "Pacault") in view of Jeon et al. (US- 10,338,124, hereinafter "Jeon").
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 with some of the elements of dependent claims 2-3. Amended independent claim 1 recites, in part,
"transmitting a spread spectrum time domain reflectometry (SSTDR) signal downhole via a well electrical cable of the well system, wherein a plurality of well devices are coupled with the well electrical cable and the well electrical cable includes cable lines and downhole connectors;
receiving, from the well electrical cable, a reflected SSTDR signal associated with the transmitted SSTDR signal;
detecting a downhole fault and determining a depth downhole of the detected downhole fault and a type of the detected downhole fault based, at least in part, on a signal analysis of the reflected SSTDR signal and the transmitted SSTDR signal; and
determining whether the detected downhole fault is in at least one section of the cable
lines, in at least one of the downhole connectors, or in at least one of the plurality of well devices
based, at least in part, on the depth downhole of the detected downhole fault and the type of the detected downhole fault."
Pacault relates to a method for performing diagnostics on a wired drill pipe telemetry system to identify a fault in the system. See Pacault, paragraph [0008]. Jeon relates to a cable fault diagnostic method and system to detect a fault type and a fault location. See Jeon, column 1, lines 8-9.
Applicant respectfully submits that Pacault and Jeon, whether alone or combined, do not teach or suggest "determining a depth downhole of the detected downhole fault" and "determining whether the detected downhole fault is in at least one section of the cable lines, in at least one of the downhole connectors, or in at least one of the plurality of well devices based, at least in part, on the depth downhole of the detected downhole fault and the type of the detected downhole fault" as recited by amended independent claim 1. On page 7, the Office states that Pacault teaches that the electrical cables include connectors and cable lines. Also, on page 7, the Office states that Jeon teaches the location and type of the fault in the cable, and therefore the combination of Pacault and Jeon teaches the above-referenced claim elements. Applicant respectfully disagrees. First, the cable taught by Pacault having connectors and cable lines and the method taught by Jeon of detecting a fault and determining the fault location is not the same as distinguishing whether the fault is in at least one section of the cable lines, in at least one downhole connector, or in at least one of the plurality of well devices based on the depth downhole of the detected downhole fault and the type of the detected downhole fault. Second, neither Pacault nor Jeon specifically mentions determining the depth downhole of the detected downhole fault. Thus, applicant respectfully submits that Pacault and Jeon, whether alone or combined, fail to teach or suggest "determining a
depth downhole
of the detected downhole fault" and "determining
whether the detected downhole fault is in at least one section of the cable lines, in at least one of the downhole connectors, or in at least one of the plurality of well devices
based, at least in part, on the
depth downhole
of the detected downhole fault and the type of the detected downhole fault" as recited by amended independent claim 1 (emphasis added).
For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that amended independent claim 1 is patentable over Pacault and Jeon, whether alone or combined. Independent claims 9 and 16 recite similar elements as independent claim 1. Thus, Applicant submits that independent claims
9 and 16 are patentable over Pacault and Jeon, whether along or combined, for at least the same reasons as independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 4-8, 12-15 and 19-20 depend from, and includes all the features of, independent claims 1, 9 and 16. Thus, dependent claims 4-8, 12-15 and 19-20 are patentable over Pacault and Jeon for at least the same reasons as independent claims 1, 9 and 16, and further in view of their own features.
Claims 5 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Pacault in view of Jeon as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US-11,762,007, hereinafter "Shin").
Applicant submits that claims 5 and 13 depend from, and include all the features of, the base claims that include the aspects discussed above vis-a-vis independent claims 1 and 9. Applicant submits that Shin does not teach what Pacault and Jeon are lacking vis-a-vis the base claims (see discussion above). Hence, Applicant submits claims 5 and 13 are patentable over Shin, Pacault and Jeon, whether alone or combined, for at least the same reasons as discussed for the base claims, and further in view of their own features.
Claims 6 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Pacault in view of Jeon as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Shier (US- 11,815,560, hereinafter "Shier").
Applicant submits that claims 6 and 14 depend from, and include all the features of, the base claims that include the aspects discussed above vis-a-vis independent claims 1 and 9. Applicant submits that Shier does not teach what Pacault and Jeon are lacking vis-a-vis the base claims (see discussion above). Hence, Applicant submits claims 6 and 14 are patentable over Shier, Pacault and Jeon, whether alone or combined, for at least the same reasons as discussed for the base claims, and further in view of their own features.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Pacault in view of Jeon and Shier as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Salminen et al. (US- 10,513,920, hereinafter "Salminen").
Applicant submits that claim 7 depends from, and include all the features of, the base
claim that includes the aspects discussed above vis-a-vis independent claim 1. Applicant submits that Salminen does not teach what Pacault, Jeon and Shier are lacking vis-a-vis the base claims (see discussion above). Hence, Applicant submits claim 7 is patentable over Salminen, Shier, Pacault and Jeon, whether alone or combined, for at least the same reasons as discussed for the base claims, and further in view of their own features.
Claims 8 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Pacault in view of Jeon as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Kamata et al. (US-8,174,403, hereinafter "Kamata") and Furse et al. (US-9,244,117, hereinafter "Furse").
Applicant submits that claims 8 and 15 depend from, and include all the features of, the base claims that include the aspects discussed above vis-a-vis independent claims 1 and 9. Applicant submits that Kamata and Furse do not teach what Pacault and Jeon are lacking vis-a- vis the base claims (see discussion above). Hence, Applicant submits claims 8 and 15 are patentable over Kamata, Furse, Pacault and Jeon, whether alone or combined, for at least the same reasons as discussed for the base claims, and further in view of their own features.
Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Pacault in view of Kamata and Jeon.
Applicant notes that claims 17-18 have been cancelled and therefore the rejection of
claim 17-18 is moot. Applicant submits that Kamata does not teach what Pacault and Jeon are lacking with respect to independent claim 16 (see discussion above). Hence, Applicant submits claim 16 is patentable over Kamata, Pacault and Jeon, whether alone or combined, for at least the same reasons as discussed above for independent claim 16.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over
Pacault in view of Kamata and Jeon as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Shier.
Applicant submits that claim 19 depends from, and include all the features of, the base claim that includes the aspects discussed above vis-a-vis independent claim 16. Applicant submits that Kamata and Shier do not teach what Pacault and Jeon are lacking vis-a-vis the base
claims (see discussion above). Hence, Applicant submits claim 19 is patentable over Kamata, Shier, Pacault and Jeon, whether alone or combined, for at least the same reasons as discussed for the base claims, and further in view of their own features.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Pacault in view of Kamata and Jeon as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of and Furse.
Applicant submits that claim 20 depends from, and include all the features of, the base claim that includes the aspects discussed above vis-a-vis independent claim 16. Applicant submits that Kamata and Furse do not teach what Pacault and Jeon are lacking vis-a-vis the base claims (see discussion above). Hence, Applicant submits claim 20 is patentable over Kamata, Furse, Pacault and Jeon, whether alone or combined, for at least the same reasons as discussed for the base claims, and further in view of their own features.
Reservation of
Rights
Applicant does not admit that documents cited under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are prior art. Arguments presented to distinguish such documents should not be construed as admissions that the documents are prior art. Applicant also reserves the right to pursue canceled and originally filed claims in a continuation application. Furthermore, Applicant does not acquiesce to any of the Examiner's assertions about the claims or the cited documents and reserves the right to argue these assertions in the future.
Conclusion