Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/641,765

FORMING PERTURBED IN-LINE PERFORATIONS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 22, 2024
Examiner
RO, YONG-SUK
Art Unit
3676
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Schlumberger Middle East S A
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
1086 granted / 1272 resolved
+33.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1297
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
§102
35.0%
-5.0% vs TC avg
§112
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1272 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 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 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. Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 11-20, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Revett (4552234). Revett discloses a bottomhole assembly, comprising: Re claims 1, 12, 13, 18 (method claim 18 is pertinent because when the assembly is put in the operation, it will result in the steps as called for in the method claims): a downhole conveyance that is extendable from a terranean surface, through a wellbore, and to a subterranean formation (i.e., fig. 1); and a perforating tool 10 configured to couple to the downhole conveyance and create a perforation cluster in the subterranean formation (i.e., figs.1-2), the perforation cluster comprising perforations arranged along a longitudinal direction of the wellbore, the perforations comprising one or more first perforations extending along a first azimuthal direction (i.e., one in center), one or more second perforations extending along a second azimuthal direction (i.e., one on left next to the center) at a first offset angle with respective to the first azimuthal direction, and one or more third perforations extending along a third azimuthal direction (i.e., one on right next to the center) at a second offset angle with respective to the first azimuthal direction, the one or more second perforations and the one or more third perforations being alternative/opposite with each other along the longitudinal direction of the wellbore, and at least two of the second azimuthal directions being different form each other (i.e., figs. 2-5). Re claim 2, the one or more second perforations are even-numbered perforations (when two on the left counted by operator as desired), and the one or more third perforations are odd-numbered perforations (when one on the right counted by operator as desired). Re claims 3, 14, 19, the first offset angle and the second offset angle range between about 0 degree and about 25 degrees (i.e., col. 3:23-27, fig. 2). Re claim 4, at least one of the second azimuthal direction or the third azimuthal direction is different than the first azimuthal direction (i.e. fig. 2). Re claims 5, 20, the first offset angle is equal in magnitude and opposite in sign to the second offset angle (i.e., fig. 2). Re claim 9, the perforating tool comprises shaped charges, detonating directions of the shaped charges being phased at azimuths smaller than about 60 degrees (i.e., figs. 1-4). Re claims 11, 17, 23, The bottom hole assembly of claim 1, wherein the perforating tool comprises a high-pressure coiled tubing jetting tool, a laser tool, or an abrasive jet perforating tool (i.e., background). Re claim 15, at least two of the third azimuthal directions are different from each other (i.e., figs. 2-5). Re claim 16, each of the perforations extends along a unique direction (i.e., figs. 2-5). Re claims 24, a first set of in-line perturbed perforations arranged along a first longitudinal direction of the wellbore, the first longitudinal direction being vertical at an azimuth of 0 degrees; and a second set of in-line perturbed perforations arranged along a second longitudinal direction of the wellbore, the second longitudinal direction being horizontal at an azimuth of 90 degrees (i.e., figs. 2-5). 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. Claim(s) 6-8, 10, 21-22, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Revett. Re claims 6, 21, Revett teaches the first offset angle is about −15 degrees, and the second offset angle is about +15 degrees, but is silent on the first offset angle is about −10 degrees, and the second offset angle is about +10 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the assembly of Revett with the first offset angle about −10 degrees and the second offset angle about +10 degrees (this creates azimuthal spacing narrower), for obtaining effective circumferential penetration of earth formations traversed by well bores, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. This also applies to claims 7, 8, 10, 22, and 25 since they are directed to range. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xia (11761311) teaches a perforation cluster of a longitudinal section of a wellbore. Batarseh (11739616) teaches offset perforations by a downhole laser tool. Hardesty et al. (20150267516) teaches offset perforations by a downhole perforating gun. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO whose telephone number is (571)270-5466. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30. 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, 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. /YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 22, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 11, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 11, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595709
ARRANGEMENT FOR CONTROLLING VOLUME IN A GAS OR OIL WELL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590510
SLURRIFICATION AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY PRESSURE PUMPING INTO A SUBSURFACE FORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590512
SLURRIFICATION AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY PRESSURE PUMPING INTO A SUBSURFACE FORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12565836
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PERFORMING DOWNHOLE FORMATION TESTING OPERATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12546219
Air Developed Packer Testing System
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+7.8%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1272 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