Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/642,400

FORMING PERTURBED IN-LINE PERFORATION PAIRS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 22, 2024
Examiner
LEMBO, AARON LLOYD
Art Unit
3672
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Schlumberger Middle East S A
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
663 granted / 821 resolved
+28.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
853
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
44.4%
+4.4% vs TC avg
§102
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
§112
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 821 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Objections Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20, recites the limitation “…less than 360 with respect…”. It appears that Applicant has inadvertently taken out the unit ‘degrees’ in the most recent amendment, making the clause grammatically incomplete. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Revett (US 4,552,234) and further in view of Behrmann et al (US 2010/026967). As concerns claim 1, Revett (US 4,552,234) discloses a bottom hole assembly, comprising: a downhole conveyance (Revett - Figure 1) that is extendable from a terranean surface, through a wellbore, and to a subterranean formation; and a perforating tool (Revett - 10) configured to couple to the downhole conveyance and create at least one pair of perforations, the at least one pair of perforations arranged linearly along a longitudinal direction of the wellbore and having a coverage of less than 360 degrees along a circumferential direction of the wellbore such that a first perforation in the at least one pair of perforations is oriented at an azimuthal offset angle relative to a second perforation in the at least one pair of perforations. (Revett - Figures 1 and 2) Revett fails to specify, however, wherein a separation distance between the first perforation and the second perforation along the longitudinal direction is smaller than a spacing distance between adjacent pairs of the at least one pair of perforations along the longitudinal direction. Behrmann et al (US 2010/026967) however teaches a perforating tool (Figure 3) which, arguably has two pairs of perforations (pair 1: 22a and 22c on the left; pair 2: 22a and 22c on the right), whereby the distance between the first perforation 22a and the second perforation 22c along the longitudinal direction (the distance of 22b) is smaller than the spacing distance between adjacent pairs of the at least one pair of perforations along the longitudinal direction (from the center point of each pair, at the midpoint of 22b, the distance from the center of the 22b on the left to the center of the 22b on the right is the length of three perforation elements, which is thus larger than the length of one perforation element.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Revett as taught by Behrmann to include the spacing of perforation elements as claimed, for the expected benefit of providing overlapping and acutely-targeted directional perforating of a borehole, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim. PNG media_image1.png 693 699 media_image1.png Greyscale As concerns claim 2, Revett discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 1, wherein the azimuthal offset angle ranges between about 0 degree and about 60 degrees. (Revett - Figures 1 and 2) As concerns claim 3, Revett discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 1, wherein the azimuthal offset angle ranges between about 0 degree and about 20 degrees. (Revett - Figures 1 and 2) As concerns claim 4, Revett discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 1, wherein the azimuthal offset angle ranges between about 0 degree and about 180 degrees. (Revett - Figures 1 and 2) As concerns claim 5, Revett discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 1, wherein a separation distance between the first and second perforations along the longitudinal direction of the wellbore is equal to or less than about 1/6 foot. (Revett – Figure 6, layers are spaced 3 inches apart) As concerns claim 6, Revett discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 1, wherein the perforating tool comprises a plurality of shaped charges, and detonating directions of the shaped charges are phased at azimuthal angles smaller than about 60 degrees. (Revett – Figures 1-4) As concerns claim 7, Revett discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 1, wherein the at least one pair of perforations comprises a first pair of perforations (Revett – for example, 61 and 62), the azimuthal offset angle is a first azimuthal offset angle of the first pair of perforations (Revett - Figure 6), and the at least one pair of perforations comprises a second pair of perforations (Revett – for example, 63 and 64), the second pair of perforations arranged along the longitudinal direction of the wellbore such that a first perforation in the second pair of perforations is oriented at a second azimuthal offset angle relative to a second perforation in the second pair of perforations. (Revett - Figure 6) As concerns claim 8, Revett discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 7, wherein a spacing distance between the first pair of perforations and the second pair of perforations is equal to or larger than about 1/6 foot. (Revett – Figure 6, layers are spaced 3 inches apart) As concerns claim 9, Revett discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 7, wherein the first azimuthal offset angle of the first pair of perforations is equal in magnitude to the second azimuthal offset angle of the second pair of perforations. (Revett – Figures 7 and 8) As concerns claim 10, Revett discloses 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. (Revett – Background) As concerns claim 11, Revett (US 4,552,234) discloses a bottom hole assembly, comprising: a downhole conveyance (Revett - Figure 1) that is extendable from a terranean surface, through a wellbore, and to a subterranean formation; and a perforating tool (Revett - 10) configured to couple to the downhole conveyance and create a plurality of pairs of perforations, each pair of the plurality of pairs of perforations arranged linearly along a corresponding longitudinal direction of the wellbore, such that a first perforation in each pair of perforations is oriented at a corresponding azimuthal offset angle relative to a second perforation in each pair of perforations, the corresponding azimuthal offset angle ranging between about 0 degree and about 60 degrees. (Revett - Figures 1 and 2) Revett fails to specify, however, wherein a separation distance between the first perforation and the second perforation along the longitudinal direction is smaller than a spacing distance between adjacent pairs of the at least one pair of perforations along the longitudinal direction. Behrmann et al (US 2010/026967) however teaches a perforating tool (Figure 3) which, arguably has two pairs of perforations (pair 1: 22a and 22c on the left; pair 2: 22a and 22c on the right), whereby the distance between the first perforation 22a and the second perforation 22c along the longitudinal direction (the distance of 22b) is smaller than the spacing distance between adjacent pairs of the at least one pair of perforations along the longitudinal direction (from the center point of each pair, at the midpoint of 22b, the distance from the center of the 22b on the left to the center of the 22b on the right is the length of three perforation elements, which is thus larger than the length of one perforation element.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Revett as taught by Behrmann to include the spacing of perforation elements as claimed, for the expected benefit of providing overlapping and acutely-targeted directional perforating of a borehole, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim. As concerns claim 12, the combination discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 11, wherein the plurality of pairs of perforations has a same azimuthal offset angle. (Behrmann – Paragraph [0004], among others) As concerns claim 13, the combination discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 11, wherein the azimuthal offset angle ranges between about 0 degree and about 20 degrees. (Behrmann – Paragraph [0004]) As concerns claim 14, the combination discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 11, wherein at least two of the pairs of perforations have different azimuthal offset angles. (Behrmann – Paragraph [0019]) As concerns claim 15, the combination discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 11, wherein at least two of the pairs of perforations are arranged along different azimuthal planes of the wellbore. (Behrmann – Paragraph [0019]) As concerns claim 16, the combination discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 15, wherein the corresponding longitudinal direction of the wellbore comprise a direction parallel to a surface of the Earth. OFFICIAL NOTICE Lateral Wellbores As concerns claim 17, the combination discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 11, wherein the plurality of pairs of perforations are spaced apart from one another at an unequal distance. (Seeing the helical spacing of Revett, and applying the multi-faceted perforation sets of Behrmann, it can be seen that the distance between various pairs of perforations spaced about a downhole tool would be at varied distances from one another.) As concerns claim 18, the combination discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 11, wherein a spacing distance between adjacent pairs of perforations is equal to or larger than about 1/6 foot. (Revett – Figure 6, layers are spaced 3 inches apart) As concerns claim 19, the combination discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 11, wherein the perforating tool comprises a high-pressure coiled tubing jetting tool, a laser tool, or an abrasive jet perforating tool. (Revett – Background) As concerns claim 20, Revett discloses a method to form perforations, comprising: positioning a perforating tool (Revett - 10) adjacent a subterranean formation within a wellbore; and operating the perforating tool to form a plurality of perforation clusters in the subterranean formation, at least one of the plurality of perforation clusters arranged linearly along a longitudinal direction of the wellbore and having a coverage of less than 360 degrees along a circumferential direction of the wellbore, at least one of the perforation clusters comprising a pair of perforations arranged along a longitudinal direction of the wellbore, a first perforation in the pair of perforations being oriented at a corresponding azimuthal offset angle relative to a second perforation in each pair of perforations (Figure 6), a spacing distance between adjacent perforation clusters being larger than 1/6 foot. (Revett – Figure 6, layers are spaced 3 inches apart) (Figure 1 illustrates the lack of 360 degree coverage at a given circumferential direction; as well as the linear spacing in a longitudinal direction) Revett fails to specify, however, wherein a separation distance between the first perforation and the second perforation along the longitudinal direction is smaller than a spacing distance between adjacent pairs of the at least one pair of perforations along the longitudinal direction. Behrmann et al (US 2010/026967) however teaches a perforating tool (Figure 3) which, arguably has two pairs of perforations (pair 1: 22a and 22c on the left; pair 2: 22a and 22c on the right), whereby the distance between the first perforation 22a and the second perforation 22c along the longitudinal direction (the distance of 22b) is smaller than the spacing distance between adjacent pairs of the at least one pair of perforations along the longitudinal direction (from the center point of each pair, at the midpoint of 22b, the distance from the center of the 22b on the left to the center of the 22b on the right is the length of three perforation elements, which is thus larger than the length of one perforation element.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Revett as taught by Behrmann to include the spacing of perforation elements as claimed, for the expected benefit of providing overlapping and acutely-targeted directional perforating of a borehole, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim. As concerns claim 21, Revett discloses the method of claim 20, wherein the corresponding azimuthal offset angle ranges between 0 degree and 60 degrees. (Revett – Figures 1, 2, 7 and 8) As concerns claim 22, Revett discloses the method of claim 20, wherein the corresponding azimuthal offset angle ranges between 0 degree and 20 degrees. (Revett – Figures 1, 2, 7 and 8) As concerns claim 23, Revett discloses the method of claim 20, wherein the perforating tool comprises a high-pressure coiled tubing jetting tool, a laser tool, or an abrasive jet perforating tool. (Background) As concerns claim 24, Revett discloses the method of claim 20, wherein the perforating tool comprises a plurality of shaped charges. (Background) As concerns claim 25, Revett discloses the method of claim 24, wherein operating the perforating tool comprises: orienting detonating directions of the shaped charges at an azimuthal phase angle equal in magnitude to the azimuthal offset angle of the pair of perforations of a corresponding one of the perforation clusters. (Revett – Figures 1, 2, 7 and 8 show how such a configuration is known.) As concerns claim 26, Revett discloses the method of claim 25, wherein the azimuthal phase angle is smaller than 60 degrees. (Revett – Figures 1, 2, 7 and 8) As concerns claim 27, Revett discloses the method of claim 20, wherein a separation distance between the first and second perforations of the pair of perforations along the longitudinal direction of the wellbore is equal to or less than 1/6 foot. (Revett – Figure 6, layers are spaced 3 inches apart is considered close enough to the claims 1/6 foot which is equal to 2 inches. Furthermore, Revett states wherein the separation is “approximately” 3 inches. Such a minor discrepancy does not represent novelty at this point.) As concerns claim 28, the combination discloses the bottom hole assembly of claim 1, wherein the azimuthal offset angle is an angle offset with respect to a transverse plane along which the second perforation extends. (Behrmann illustrates such an angular offset, Figure 3) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L LEMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3065. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm. 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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. /AARON L LEMBO/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3679
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 22, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 11, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 03, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 14, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 17, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 30, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 10, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 10, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589704
REAR VEHICLE BODY STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584406
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IMAGING SUBSURFACE DENSITY USING COSMIC RAY MUONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584398
DOWNHOLE SEPARATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571282
DOWNHOLE FLUID LOSS REPAIR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565169
GRILLE GUARD CONFIGURED TO CONVERT INTO A VEHICLE-MOUNTED BENCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
81%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+12.8%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 821 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