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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Revett states "the circumferential disposition of the shots can be in clockwise spiral or counterclockwise spiral or in a combination of spirals," and that the penetrations have a "360 degree coverage.", and Revett does not teach an azimuthal range that is less than 180 degrees with respect to a principal orientation of the perforating tool. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Revett (i.e., figs. 2-5) discloses azimuthal range between each penetration is clearly less than 180 degrees with respect to a principal orientation of the perforating tool 10 (i.e., fig. 1).
All rejections stand.
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, 23-24, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Revett (455234).
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 and configured to an azimuthal range that is less than 180 degrees (i.e., figs. 2-5, azimuthal range between each penetration is clearly less than 180 degrees) with respect to a principal orientation of the perforating tool 10, the perforations comprising two or more first perforations extending along a first azimuthal direction (i.e., one in center), two 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 two 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 two or more third perforations being alternative/opposite and sequential arrangement with each other (i.e., fig. 1) along the longitudinal direction of the wellbore, and at least two of the second azimuthal directions being different from each other (i.e., figs. 1-5).
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 claim 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).
Re claim 26, each perforation is spaced along the longitudinal direction of the wellbore from an adjacent one of the perforations a substantially similar distance (i.e., fig. 1).
Re claim 27, the two or more second perforations are aligned along the longitudinal direction of the wellbore and the two or more third perforations are aligned along the longitudinal direction of the wellbore and offset with respect to the one or more first perforations and the two or more second perforations along the longitudinal direction of the wellbore (i.e., fig. 1).
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights