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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to Applicant’s Reply of August 18, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previously presented objections thereto.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4, 6, and 11 overcome the previously presented 35 USC 112(b) rejection thereof.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 6, and 11 overcome the previously presented 35 USC 103 rejection thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that neither Bradley nor Reimert discloses an alignment member in an interior recess on a first surface of the box and pin ends or a locking member in an exterior gap on a second surface of the pin end.
While it is agreed that Bradley does not disclose an alignment member or a locking member and Reimert does not disclose both an alignment member in an interior recess on the box and pin ends as well as a threaded connection, Reimert does disclose the claimed locking member.
The claims require “an external gap” defined by the second surface of the box and the second surface of the pin end but do not include any other discerning features of the gap. As shown below, there is a gap at the second surface of the pin end of Bradley (see reproduction of a portion of Figure 1) as well as a gap defined by the second surface of the box end and the second surface of the pin end of Reimert (see reproduction of a portion of Figure 3). Also shown in Reimert is that the locking member 82/86 is located within that gap.
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
96
180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
186
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “exterior gap” in line 2 should be changed to --the exterior gap--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley (US 2019/0195054) in view of Evans et al. (US 2004/0135370, Evans) and Reimert (US 4,659,119).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 11: Bradley discloses an apparatus Fig 1 for perforating a subterranean formation Abstract, comprising:
a first perforating gun 700 having a box end 120, a first surface Fig 1, and a second surface Fig 1;
a second perforating gun 100 having a pin end 110, a first surface Fig 1 and a second surface Fig 1, wherein the first perforating gun and the second perforating gun are configured to have a specified angular alignment when fired Fig 1 – the phrase “specified angular alignment” is considered broad and encompasses any alignment of the guns when fired, wherein the second surface of the box end and the surface of the pin end define an exterior gap A (see reproduction of a portion of Figure 1 below);
a threaded connection that includes internal threads 121 formed on the box end and external threads 11 formed on the pin end, the threaded connection having a specified torque value range when the first perforating gun and the second perforating gun have the specified angular alignment the phrase “specified torque value range” is considered broad and encompasses any torque value of the connection when the guns are arranged to be fired.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
96
180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bradley discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the box end having a first slot, the pin end having a second slot, the first surface of the box end and the first surface of the pin end defining an interior recess and the apparatus having an alignment assembling including:
an alignment member disposed in the interior recess, the alignment member configured to deform to maintain the specified torque value range when the box end and the pin end are rotated into the specified angular alignment, and
a locking member disposed in the exterior gap, the locking member including a first tab and a second tab, the first tab being seated in the first slot and the second tab being seated in the second slot after the box end and the pin end are rotated into the specified angular alignment, locking member thereby physically connecting the box end and the pin end.
Evans discloses a tubing connection used in downhole tools. The connection 10 includes a pin end 12 with a first and second surface Fig 2 and a box end 14 with first and second surface Fig 2. The first surfaces of the pin and box ends define an interior recess at 46 in which an alignment member 76 is located. The alignment member is designed to deform when torque is applied to the connection [0106], [0107].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Bradley so that the first surfaces of the pin and box ends included an interior surface in which an alignment member was located, as taught by Evans, in order to have enhanced the strength and integrity of the threaded connection between the pin and box ends [0106].
Bradley, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the box end having a first slot, the pin end having a second slot, the apparatus having an alignment assembling including:
a locking member disposed in the exterior gap, the locking member including a first tab and a second tab, the first tab being seated in the first slot and the second tab being seated in the second slot after the box end and the pin end are rotated into the specified angular alignment, locking member thereby physically connecting the box end and the pin end.
Reimert discloses an apparatus Fig 3, 4 comprising:
a box end 40 that includes a first slot 74/76, a first surface Fig 3, 4, and a second surface Fig 3, 4;
a pin end 10 that includes a second slot 38, a first surface Fig 3, 4, and a second surface Fig 3, 4, wherein the second surface of the box end and the second surface of the pin end define an exterior gap B (see reproduction of a portion of Figure 3 below);
a threaded connection that includes internal threads 54 formed on the box end and external threads 24 formed on the pin end, and
an alignment assembly having a locking member 82/86 disposed in the exterior gap Fig 3, 4, the locking member including a first tab top of 82/86 and a second tab bottom of 82/86, the first tab being seated in the first slot and the second tab being seated in the second slot after the box end and the pin end are rotated into the specified angular alignment Fig 3, 4, locking member thereby physically connecting the box end and the pin end 8:35-9:34.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image2.png
186
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Bradley so that the apparatus included an alignment assembly with a locking member, as taught by Reimert, in order to have been able to close and latch the apparatus without the need for extensive rotation of the pin and box ends 1:37-45.
Regarding claims 2 and 7: Wherein the exterior gap is between a nose of the box end and a shoulder of the pin end Fig 3 of Reimert and the interior recess is between a face of the pin end and an inner shoulder of the box end Fig 2 of Evans
Regarding claims 5 and 10: Wherein the first perforating gun has at least one shaped charge 200/270 of Bradley and the second perforating gun has at least one shaped charge 200/270 of Bradley, and wherein the specified angular alignment is selected to cause perforating jets formed by the at least one shaped charge of the first perforating gun and the at least one shaped charge of the second perforating gun to travel in the same angular direction Fig 1 of Bradley shows the charges in the same orientation.
Regarding claim 8: Bradley, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the alignment member being at least partially formed of a material having a modulus of elasticity within 20% of the modulus of elasticity of copper.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Bradley so that the alignment member was at least partially formed of a material having a modulus of elasticity within 20% of the modulus of elasticity of copper since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
The test for obviousness of a result-effective variable is not whether or not this variable is recognized in the art applied. Such recognition would potentially lead to the variable being rejected as being anticipated by the reference. The test for obviousness of a result-effective variable is whether or not one or ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this variable could be changed or altered, and the results of this change, without deviating from the intended purpose of the reference. Further, the variable must not have any associated criticality in the instant application.
In this case, paragraph 22 of the instant specification gives no criticality to the specific material or modulus of elasticity of the material of the alignment member. Paragraph 22 merely indicates that the alignment member can be made from a material having a modulus of elasticity within 20% of the modulus of elasticity of copper. Therefore, the specific material or modulus of elasticity of the material of the alignment member can be said to be obvious.
Regarding claim 9: Wherein the alignment member has a thickness selected to contact the pin end and the box end before the pin end and the box end can rotate into the specified angular alignment Fig 5-14 of Reimert.
Regarding claim 11: Bradley, as modified, discloses a method for perforating a subterranean formation, comprising:
configuring a perforating tool to include the above described apparatus;
conveying the perforating tool into a wellbore [0003], [0004], [0022] of Bradley; and
firing the perforating tool [0003], [0004], [0022] of Bradley.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER H GAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7029. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 6-3:30 and every other Friday 6-11.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/JENNIFER H GAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
JHG
9/23/2025