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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s claims, filed on 03/25/2026.
Claims 1, 10, and 22 have been amended.
Claims 9 and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-8, 10-19, and 21-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10-19, and 21-23 remain pending in the application. Applicant' s argument and amendment to the claim has been considered and found not fully persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the drawing objection for the “controls means” has been considered, found persuasive, and withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C rejection for claim 22 has been considered, found persuasive, and withdrawn.
The remaining drawing objections, 35 U.S.C . 112 rejections, and prior art rejections made in Final Office Action dated 11/25/2025 are maintained and are repeated below with the amended language. Although the amended claims have been further limited, the amended claims still read on the prior art of record, as each newly added limitation is taught by the applied references as explained in the updated claim rejections below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “delivery means” is merely cited to clarify how the downhole heater is delivered from the surface and refers to exiting technology used to deliver wells tools is acknowledged, however; the limitation is positively recited and must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from claims under 37 CFR 1.83(a).
Regarding applicant’s arguments for the remaining 112(a) rejections has been considered, found not persuasive and the rejection maintained. The limitation “baffle is configured to at least partially restrict the flow of fluids within the borehole so as to create a volume of free flowing fluid in a region of the borehole,” is not adequately described or explained in the specification. Applicant states that “the heating tool and baffle works together to create a volume of free flowing fluid in the borehole by limiting the extent the rising fluid can travel up the borehole” does not adequately describe the claim result. If the baffle restricts fluid flow (i.e. limits the extent the rising fluid can travel), the specification does not reasonably convey how such a restriction simultaneously creates a region of free flowing fluid. The argument is not persuasive and the rejection maintained. The limitation ”control means that co-ordinate the operation of the heating tool and the expansion of the baffle,” is not adequately described or explained in the specification. Applicant argument that heater’s setting tool enables synchronized triggering of the baffle before the heater‘s ignition is describing a function that is not describe in the specification. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection maintained.
Regarding applicant’s arguments for the remaining 112(b) rejections has been considered, found not persuasive, and the rejections maintained. The limitation "similar to what which is achievable in a test vessel wherein said test vessel having a depth less than a depth of said borehole” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. The phrase “similar” is a relative term that does not have a clear boundary and "wherein said test vessel having a depth less than a depth of said borehole” does not provide meaningful objective boundaries because the limitation fails to specify relevant parameters of the referenced test vessel (see 112(a) and claim 1 rejection). Applicant argues that the claim language informs one of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed baffle operates to bring the downhole environment closer to conditions achievable in a test vessel during development. The claim remains indefinite because “similar to” is a statement of degree without objective boundaries for determining the scope of the claim. The claim limitation does not positively recite a test vessel as a structural or operational limitation of the invention. Instead, the test vessel language remains a comparative benchmark describing a desired or resultant condition of the downhole heating environment. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim is directed to achieving a thermal or fluid flow condition in a borehole that is comparable to a confined laboratory environment, without requiring any actual test vessel or any operation performed within such a vessel. The additional limitation that the test vessel has a depth less than the borehole merely describes a physical characteristic of a hypothetical reference environment and does not impart any structural limitation to the claimed invention. The claim does not recite any specific vessel configuration, boundary conditions, thermal constraints or measurable parameters defining the similarity. The limitation ”control means that co-ordinate the operation of the heating tool and the expansion of the baffle,” is unclear how the control means is enabling, controlling, or synchronizing the heating tool and the expansion of the baffle. Applicant argument that heater’s setting tool enables synchronized triggering of the baffle before the heater‘s ignition is further limiting than the claim language. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both Hansen and Carragher are directed to the same field of downhole heating operations and address known problems of heat dissipation and convective fluid movements withing a borehole. Hansen teaches localizing heat and restricting fluid movement with an electrical heater while Carragher teaches creating a localized heated region using a thermite based heater. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the heater of Hansen with the thermite chemical heater as taught by Carragher with a reasonable expectation of success in order to heat a region of a downhole target as taught by Carragher (Fig. 3; Col. 9, lines 1-3) because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). The argument is not persuasive and the rejection maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Claim 1 and 10 recites: above ground delivery means located at a surface of the borehole , the delivery means, said delivery means, and delivery means located at the surface of a borehole.
The recited elements must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from claims 1 and 10. As cited on page 9, line 30, “delivery means (not shown) that are located at the surface.” No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The “delivery means located at the surface of the borehole” recited in claim 1 and claim 10 is determined to invoke 35 USC 112(f), and the specification (see page 4, lines 20-21; page 9, line 30 – 31) appears to provide the structure of a lowering or lifting device coupled to the delivery device (i.e. wireline) to raise or lower the heating tool within the borehole.
The “control means that control the expansion of the baffle are provide on the heating tool” recited in claim 16 is determined to invoke 35 USC 112(f), and the specification (see pg. 12, lines 10-12) appears to provide the structure of an actuator coupled to the assembly to expand the baffle and that defines “control means…provided on the heating tool.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 contains subject matter that is not supported by the specification. Specifically, the claim recites “baffle is configured to at least partially restrict the flow of fluids within the borehole so as to create a volume of free flowing fluid in a region of the borehole,” but there is no corresponding disclosure in the specification that adequately describes or explains the subject matter of free flowing fluid when the baffles operation is to restrict the flow of fluid in the wellbore in sufficient detail to support the claim invention.
The specification lacks any discussion of how the volume of free flowing fluid is created in the region of the borehole when the volume is already unrestricted, or how the baffle can restrict the flow of fluids and simultaneously create a region of free flowing fluid. Therefore, the claimed subject matter is not sufficiently supported by the written description.
Claim 15 contains subject matter that is not supported by the specification. Specifically, the claim recites ”control means that co-ordinate the operation of the heating tool and the expansion of the baffle,” but there is no corresponding disclosure in the specification that adequately describes or explains the subject matter of a control that coordinates the operation of the heating tool and the expansion of the baffle in sufficient detail to support the claim invention.
The specification lacks any discussion of a control used to coordinate the operation of the heating tool and the expansion of the baffle, including how the control is defined, how it operates, and/or how the control is specifically structured to coordinate the ignition of the heater and the expansion of the baffle in the claimed invention. Therefore, the claimed subject matter is not sufficiently supported by the written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 10, 12, and 15 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.
Claims 1 and 10 recites the limitation "similar to what which is achievable in a test vessel wherein said test vessel having a depth less than a depth of said borehole.”
The phrase “similar” is a relative term that does not have a clear boundary. It is unclear what degree of similarity is required, how such similarity would be determined or what has to be similar to the test vessel. Furthermore, "wherein said test vessel having a depth less than a depth of said borehole” does not provide meaningful objective boundaries because the limitation fails to specify relevant parameters of the referenced test vessel and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner recommends removing this limitation as it does not provide clear metes and bounds or replace with concrete structure and measurable thermal limitations to achieve the desired heating behavior.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a delivery support.” It is unclear whether this delivery support is part of the delivery means of claim 10 or constitutes a distinct component and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The “a delivery support” of claim 12 lacks antecedent basis. Examiner is reading as “the delivery support.”
Claim 15 recites the limitation ”control means that co-ordinate the operation of the heating tool and the expansion of the baffle.” It is unclear how the control means is enabling, controlling, or synchronizing the heating tool and the expansion of the baffle and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-8, 11-19, and 21-23 are rejected for depending on a rejected indefinite claim.
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 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 21-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (WO2020/157555) in view of Carragher (US11,867,020).
Claim 1. Hansen, as best understood by the indefinite language, discloses: A method of heating a downhole target region of a borehole using a downhole heater assembly ([0002]) that comprises at least one heating tool (1 heater, Fig. 1-4) and a baffle (flow restrictor; (4) packer, Fig. 1, or (11) radially expanding shutter, Fig. 4; standard packer, [0021]; mechanical, non-sealing flow restriction device, [0021]), said method comprising:
delivering the heating tool, to the target region of the borehole ([0002]) using a delivery support (9 conveyance, Fig.1-3) connected to above-ground delivery means located at a surface of the borehole (inherently coupled to 9 conveyance to lower or raise and located at the surface, Fig. 1-3; [0002]);
positioning the baffle in the borehole at a location between the heating tool and the delivery means (Fig. 4; flow restrictor is between the heater and conveyance), at a distance of up to 6m away from the heating tool, wherein the baffle is configured to at least partially restrict the flow of fluids (flow restrictor is not sealing, [0021, 0029] or 6 bypass conduit; Fig. 1-3) within the borehole so as to create a volume of free flowing fluid in a region of the borehole between the heating tool and the surface, where said delivery means is located (fluid is free to flow between the heater and surface since the restrictor is not sealing; Fig. 4, [0021-0029]), that is similar to that which is achievable in a test vessel wherein said test vessel having a depth less than a depth of said borehole;
operating the heating tool so as to generate heat within the target region of the borehole ([0001-0003]); and
retrieving the baffle and the heating tool from the borehole (heater and restrictor are coupled and would be inherently retrieved simultaneously from the borehole, Fig. 4).
Hansen does to disclose: one thermite chemical heating tool or explicitly disclose positioning a baffle at a distance of up to 6m away from the heating tool.
Regarding the limitation: disclose positioning a baffle at a distance of up to 6m away from the heating tool, Hansen does to explicitly disclose, however Hansen does recite the use of a spacer (3, Fig. 4) to position the restrictor a distance away from the heater. As shown in Fig. 4, the distance between the restrictor and heater can be recognized as a result effective variable since the distance affects known operational characteristics such as heating efficiency, thermal localization, or operational performance. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the restrictor at a distance of up to 6m away from the heating tool to allow for fluid flow restriction and heat retention within a target region, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding the limitation: is similar to that which is achievable in a test vessel wherein said test vessel having a depth less than a depth of said borehole, Hansen does not explicitly disclose. The claim limitation does not positively recite a test vessel as a structural or operational limitation of the invention. Instead, the test vessel language remains a comparative benchmark describing a desired or resultant condition of the downhole heating environment. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim is directed to achieving a thermal or fluid flow condition in a borehole that is comparable to a confined laboratory environment, without requiring any actual test vessel or any operation performed within such a vessel. The additional limitation that the test vessel has a depth less than the borehole merely describes a physical characteristic of a hypothetical reference environment and does not impart any structural limitation to the claimed invention. The claim does not recite any specific vessel configuration, boundary conditions, thermal constraints or measurable parameters defining the similarity. Hanson does disclose restricting convective fluid movement within a borehole using a flow restrictor relative to a downhole heater to localize heat and reduce thermal dissipation. This disclosure inherently produces a thermally defined confined region surrounding the heater resulting in heat retention. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a retention and localization of heat results in a controlled thermal environment analogous to that achieved in small scall experimental or test vessel environments. The comparison of the test vessel comparison merely reflects an inherent or predictable result of Hansen when operated under convection restricted conditions. The limitation ”similar to that which is achievable in a test vessel wherein said test vessel having a depth less than a depth of said borehole” is comparative and does not impose a structural limitation distinguishing over Hansen.
Hansen does not disclose: thermite chemical heating tool.
Carragher discloses a method of heating a eutectic based alloy downhole tool comprising of a tubular body with an eutectic alloy located on an outer surface and using a heater with a chemical heat source such as thermite to melt the alloy and form a seal. Therefore, Carragher teaches: thermite chemical heating tool (7 heater, Fig. 3; Col. 9, lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the heater of Hansen with the thermite chemical heater as taught by Carragher with a reasonable expectation of success in order to heat a region of a downhole target as taught by Carragher (Fig. 3; Col. 9, lines 1-3) because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 2. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: The method of claim 1, comprising providing the baffle said delivery support wherein said delivery support is selected from a group consisting of slick line, wireline, coil (Hansen: coiled tubing, [0022]) and drill pipe.
Claim 3. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the baffle and the heating tool are delivered downhole at the same time (Hansen: Fig. 4).
Claim 4. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the baffle is positioned downhole after the heating tool has been delivered to the target region (Hansen: restrictor is located above the heater, therefore the heater is inherently delivered to the target region before the restrictor as the assembly travels downhole, Fig. 4) .
Claim 5. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of delivering the baffle downhole in an unexpanded state and then expanding the baffle towards the walls of the borehole so as to increase the extent to which the baffle restricts the flow of fluids within the borehole (Hansen; inherent function 4 inflate packer, [0024]; Fig. 1-2 or 11 radially expandable flow restrictor, [0029]; Fig,. 4).
Claim 6. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: The method of claim 5, wherein the expansion of the baffle is co- ordinated with the operation of heating tool (Hansen; flow restrictor inherently operates with the heater, Fig. 4; [0020-0029]) .
Claim 7. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: The method of claim 5, wherein the heating tool is provided with control means configured to operate the heating tool and control an expansion of the baffle.
Hansen does not explicitly teach the control of the operation of the heater and the flow restrictor.
Hansen does teach the inflation of a packer (flow restrictor, [0020]) to restrict the heat transfer from below the packer therefore, Hansen inherently comprises a control to operate the heater (to create heat) and inflate packer (to restrict flow). Examiner finds Hansen to render the limitation obvious because Hansen discloses the inflation of a packer to restrict the heat transfer from below the packer (implied heat from the activation of the heater). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a control to coordinate the operation of the heater and the packer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to control the actuation of the packer before the activation of the heater as instantly claimed based on choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 8. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the baffle is positioned between 0.3 to 1.0m above the heating tool (see previously rejected claim 1).
Regarding the limitation: the baffle is positioned between 0.3 to 1.0m above the heating tool, Hansen does to explicitly disclose, however Hansen does recite the use of a spacer (3, Fig. 4) to position the restrictor a distance away from the heater. As shown in Fig. 4, the distance between the restrictor and heater can be recognized as a result effective variable since the distance affects known operational characteristics such as heating efficiency, thermal localization, or operational performance. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the restrictor at a distance 0.3 to 1.0m above the heating tool to allow for fluid flow restriction and heat retention within a target region, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 10. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: A downhole heater assembly comprising at least one thermite based chemical heating tool and a delivery support connection point (Hansen: inherent coupled connection of 11 to 9, Fig. 1-4), by which the heating tool is connectable to delivery means located at a surface of a borehole via a delivery support such that said heating tool can be delivered to and retrieved from a downhole target region of the borehole; and
wherein the assembly further comprises a baffle configured to be positionable in the borehole at a location between said heating tool and said delivery means at a distance of up to 6m away from said heating tool, said baffle being configured to restrict the movement of heated fluids produced during the operation of the heating tool so as to create a volume of free flowing fluid in a region of said borehole between said heating tool and said surface, where said delivery means is located, that is similar to that which is achievable in a test vessel wherein said test vessel having a depth less than a depth of said borehole (See previously rejected claim 1).
Claim 11. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: The downhole heater assembly of claim 10, wherein the baffle is located between the heating tool and the delivery support connection point (Hansen: 11 can be located between a connection point and heater if the connection point is above 11, Fig. 4).
Claim 12. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: The downhole heater assembly of claim 10, further comprising a delivery support connected to the delivery support connection point and wherein the baffle is located on the delivery support (Hansen: Fig. 1-3).
Claim 13. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: The downhole heater assembly of claim 10, wherein the baffle is configured to be expandable towards the walls of the borehole so as to increase the extent to which the baffle restricts fluid movement within the borehole (see previously rejected claim 5).
Claim 14. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: The downhole heater assembly of claim 13, wherein the mechanism by which the expansion of the baffle is achieved is selected from hydraulic means, pneumatic means, mechanical means and combinations thereof (Hansen: inflating a packer, [0007]; mechanical flow restrictor, [0029]).
Claim 15. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: The downhole heater assembly of claim 14, wherein the assembly comprises control means that co-ordinate the operation of the heating tool and the expansion of the baffle.
Hansen does not explicitly teach the coordination of the operation of the heater and the flow restrictor.
Hansen does teach the inflation of a packer (flow restrictor, [0020]) to restrict the heat transfer from below the packer therefore, Hansen inherently comprises a control to operate the heater (to create heat) and inflate packer (to restrict flow). Examiner finds Hansen to render the limitation obvious because Hansen discloses the inflation of a packer to restrict the heat transfer from below the packer (implied heat from the activation of the heater). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a control to coordinate the operation of the heater and the packer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to control the actuation of the packer before the activation of the heater on choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 16. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: The downhole heater assembly of claims 15, wherein the control means that control the expansion of the baffle are provided on the heating tool.
Hansen does not explicitly teach the control of the expansion of the flow restrictor.
Hansen does teach the inflation of a packer (flow restrictor, [0020]) to restrict the heat transfer from below the packer therefore, Hansen inherently comprises a control to inflate the packer. Examiner finds Hansen to render the limitation obvious because Hansen discloses the inflation of a packer to restrict the heat transfer from below the packer (heat from the activation of heater). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a control to inflate the packer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to control the actuation of the packer before the activation of the heater as instantly claimed based on choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 17. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: The downhole heater assembly of claim 13, wherein the baffle is urged to expand and/or contract by way of one or more resilient biasing means (Hansen: inherent to inflatable packer, [0007]; mechanical flow restrictor, [0029]).
Claim 19. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: The downhole heater assembly of any of claim 10, wherein the baffle is positioned a distance of between 0.3 to 1.0m (see previously rejected claim 8).
Claim 21. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: The downhole heater assembly of claim 10, wherein the baffle comprises insulating means (Hansen: inflatable packer may be filled with medium having low heat transfer properties and acts as an insulator, [0020]).
Claim 22. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: A method of deploying a eutectic based alloy and/or bismuth based alloy (Carragher: 3 eutectic alloy element, Fig. 3; bismuth containing alloy, Col. 1 lines 13-17) based tool in a downhole target region, said method comprising:
delivering the eutectic based alloy and/or bismuth based alloy based tool to the downhole target region (Carragher: Fig. 3);
heating the tool using the heating method of claim 1 (Carragher: abstract and previously rejected claim 1).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (WO2020/157555) in view of Carragher (US11,867,020) and further in view of Johnson (US4,576,042) .
Claim 18. Hansen in view of Carragher, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: The downhole heater assembly of claim 17. Hansen in view of Carragher does not teach: the baffle comprises a canopy of flexible material connected to an umbrella spring mechanism.
Johnson discloses a flow basket with supported bows that extends over petals that is actuated by a spring mechanism.
Johnson teaches: a canopy of flexible material (70 petals, Fig. 8) connected to an umbrella spring mechanism (30 releasing collar comprises of 910 spring, Fig. 9; string tension causes collars to move and allow petals to expand; Col. 4, line s37-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the mechanical expandable flow restrictor of Hansen with the mechanical expandable flow basket as taught by Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to create an expandable mechanical flow restrictor actuated by a spring as taught by Johnson (Fig. 7-9).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (WO2020/157555) in view of Carragher (US11,867,020) and further in view of Carragher (US11,578,556).
Claim 23. Hansen in view of Carragher `7020, as best understood by the indefinite language, teaches: A method using the heating method of claim 1.
Hansen in view of Carragher `7020 does not teach: A method of clearing an underground conduit from a borehole, wherein the underground conduit is melted using the heating method.
Carragher ‘5886 discloses a method of clearing well casing for a target region of a borehole using high temperatures to melt the casing. Therefore, Carragher `5886 teaches: A method of clearing an underground conduit from a borehole, wherein the underground conduit is melted using the heating method (Fig. 1e; Col. 9, lines 1-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the system of Hansen in view of Carragher `7020 by incorporating the casing clearing method using heat as taught by Carragher ‘5886 with a reasonable expectation of success in order clear well casing from a target region of a borehole using high temperatures to melt the casing as taught by Carragher ‘5886 (Col. 9, lines 1-32).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Craig whose telephone number is (571)270-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. 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.
/DANIEL T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights