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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every features of the invention specified in the claims.
In the present application, no drawing is provided to show the limitations: a platform, a chiller, a laser source, a control system, a control counsel, a clamp, an optical slip ring, an exhaustion gas treatment assembly, a cap...
The limitation must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Objections
Claims 51-66 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 51, and 62: “a)”, “b)”, “c)”, “d)”, “e)”, “f)”. and “g)” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 51-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shuck (US 3,977,478) in view of Graga et al. (US 20110278270 A1).
Regarding claim 51, Shuck discloses
A laser system for surface decommission of wells (laser drilling subterranean Earth formations, tittle), the system comprising:
a platform (platform 18, fig.1);
a laser unit (laser beam generator 20, fig.1), the laser unit (laser beam generator 20) comprising: a chiller (reservoir 44, fig.1); a laser source (source from laser beam generator 20); the laser source (laser beam generator 20) located on the platform (platform 18) and inside of a laser housing [laser beam generator 20 has a housing, fig.1];
a laser tool (rotatable structure 28, fig.1) comprising a body (annulus 30, fig.1), a laser delivery head (inner member 32, fig.1), wherein in the laser delivery head (inner member 32) is rotatable with respect to the body (annulus 30) [Col.3, lines 24-28 cited: “…rotation of the inner member 32 may be achieved by employing any suitable mechanism, such as the gears 36 coupled to a drive motor 38 positioned atop the mounting structure 18 through a driveshaft 40...”];
a clamp (gears 36, fig.1) mechanically associated with the laser tool (rotatable structure 28), and configured to engage a structure to be cut by a laser beam (light beam 22, fig.1) from the laser tool (rotatable structure 28).
However, Shuck does not disclose a control system; a control counsel; and the laser source capable of generating at least a 5 KW laser beam.
Graga discloses a system (laser drilling system, fig.1) comprises a control system (control and operations center 101, fig.1); and a control counsel (sensors 106, 107, fig.1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a laser system of Shuck, by including a control system; and a control counsel, as taught by Graga, in order to control the drilling operation.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to control the laser source of Shuck, capable of generating at least a 5 KW laser beam, as it well known in the art, in order suitable for the user application.
Regarding claim 52, Graga discloses
the body comprises a high power optical fiber (optical drill 104, fig.1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a laser system of Shuck, by comprising a high power optical fiber, as taught by Graga, in order to improve a drilling operational.
Regarding claim 53, Graga discloses
an optical slip ring (optical drill 104, fig.1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a laser system of Shuck, by comprising an optical slip ring, as taught by Graga, in order to improve a drilling operational.
Regarding claim 54, the modification of Shuck and Graga does not disclose the limitations, but it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a laser system of Shuck, as deployed during normal operation is classified as having an accessible emission limit of 2.0×10.sup.−3 k.sub.1k.sub.2 Wcm.sup.−2 sr.sup.−1 radiance or less, as it well known in the art, in order to improve the drilling operational.
Regarding claim 55, Graga discloses
an optical slip ring (optical drill 104, fig.1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a laser system of Graga, by comprising an optical slip ring, as taught by Graga, in order to improve a drilling operational.
Regarding claim 56, the modification of Shuck and Graga does not disclose the limitations, but it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a laser system of Shuck, as deployed during normal operation is classified as having an accessible emission limit of 2.0×10.sup.−3 k.sub.1k.sub.2 Wcm.sup.−2 sr.sup.−1 radiance or less, as it well known in the art, in order to improve the drilling operational.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 57-61 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 57-61, the prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach the limitations as cited in the claims, such as: an exhaustion gas treatment assembly, wherein the assembly comprising: a cap, wherein the cap is configured for association with the laser tool during deployment; and a filtration device, wherein the filtration device is configured for fluid communication with the cap during deployment; whereby the assembly reduces the release of pollutants into the atmosphere from a laser cutting operation.
Allowance is indicated to claims 62-66 because: the prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach the limitations as cited in the claim 62, such as a collection cap; wherein the collection cap is associate with the structure to be cut and the laser tool; and, a filtration device filter; wherein the cap is in fluid communication with the collection cap; whereby the filtration device reduces the release of pollutants into the atmosphere from the laser operation.
The dependent claims 63-66 are also allowed by being depended on the independent claim 62.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1834. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00am-5.00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached on 571-270-5095. 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.
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
10/20/2025