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 § 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. 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. Claim (s) s 1-4, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterji ( US 6202751 ) in view of Cameron (US 20 04 /0 0251033 ) Regrading claims 1 and 6 -7 . Chatterji teaches a method of forming a cement sand control device in wellbores, which comprises placing a cement comprising an acid soluble particulate and a gel with a breaker. The cement is contacted with an acid which dissolves the acid dissolvable particles, resulting in a sand screen which is permeable to produced fluids, but prevents formation sand from flowing through (column 1, line 41 – column 2, line10). Such acid would be an external stimulus as claimed in claim 1. Chatterji indicates that sand control is necessary in order to prevent erosion of tubulars (Column1, lines 13-19), but does not specify the cement being placed around the tubular. Cameron teaches that it is known in the art to utilize permeable cement sand control screens about tubulars in producing wellbores (see claim 1). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the cement of Chatterji about a tubular, given the teaching of Cameron, since one of ordinary skill would have the predictable result of forming a successful sand control device in wellbores (KSR rationales D and C). Regarding claims 2-4, Chatterji uses an acid, thus the fluid has a selected pH. There are only 2 possible ways of introducing the acid of Chatterji, either into the wellbore or into the tubular, thus having such limited choices, either one would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR rational E). Claims 5 and 8 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. Claims 5 and 8 are distinguished from the prior art of Chatterji and Cameron in teaching that the sand control device is formed and treated outside of the wellbore. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PHILIP C TUCKER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1095 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8-4:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Alexa Neckel can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2450 . 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. /PHILIP C TUCKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745