Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/602,493

CHEMICAL HEAT SOURCES FOR USE IN DOWN-HOLE OPERATIONS

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Mar 12, 2024
Examiner
FELTON, AILEEN BAKER
Art Unit
1734
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
BISN Tec Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
51%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 6m
To Grant
67%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 51% of resolved cases
51%
Career Allow Rate
223 granted / 435 resolved
-13.7% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 6m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
486
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
63.7%
+23.7% vs TC avg
§102
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
§112
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 435 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gonzalez (20060144591). Regarding claim 1, Gonzalez discloses a subterranean well heating composition that includes thermite and a bonding agent (abstract and 0020). Regarding claim 6, the block include and ignition conduit in the block (fig. 1). Regarding claims 7 and 10, the ignition material will inherently burn hotter than the solid fuel since it is being used to ignite the solid fuel. 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 4, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez (20060144591) in view of Carragher (WO2014096875). Regarding claims 4, 5, and 8, Carragher teaches a down-hole heat source that include thermite and a damping agent (abstract). The solid blocks are stacked and vary in composition from block to block (pg. 4, lines 5-20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made and/or filed to use multiple stacked blocks with varying concentrations as taught by Carragher since Carragher suggests that this will result in more control over the heating patterns. Regarding claim 9, it is also to vary the parameters to achieve a desired result. The compound is identified in the prior art as a binder and thus has a binding effect so one of skill would be able to determine the relative amounts to arrive at the desired binding amount in the composition. It is well-settled that optimizing a result effective variable is well within the expected ability of a person of ordinary skill in the subject art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez (20060144591) in view of Hahma (DE 102011012895). Hahma teaches various binding agents and additive for thermite and includes sodium silicate and magnesium carbonate (0018 and 0019). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made and/or filed to use the thermite additives as taught by Hahma with the similar thermite material disclosed by Gonzalez since Hahma suggests that they are known thermite binding agents an additives. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the bonding agent disclosed by Gonzalez does not maintain solid form but note that there is no evidence of this property in Gonzalez. Further, no specific material is claimed in claim 1 for the binding agent that would possess the claimed operational language. The performance of the solid fuel composition during burning is also a method limitation in a product claim. The method of using the composition does not limit the claimed composition which is merely a thermite material and binding agent. This is disclosed in the prior art by Gonzalez. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. a specific binding agent) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AILEEN BAKER FELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6875. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday 9-5:30, Thursday 11-3, Friday 9-5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /AILEEN B FELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 12, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 25, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600688
SENSITIZING COMPOSITION FOR ENERGETIC HYDROGEN PEROXIDE EMULSIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595217
THERMITE BLOCK FOR STORED-DATA DESTRUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595174
METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE PENTAZOLATE ANION USING A HYPERVALENT IODINE OXIDANT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12559443
ENERGY-RELEASING COMPOSITE MATERIAL AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12552729
MECHANICALLY-GASSED EMULSION EXPLOSIVES AND METHODS RELATED THERETO
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
51%
Grant Probability
67%
With Interview (+15.5%)
4y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 435 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month