Detailed Action
Status of Claims
Claims 1-28 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 Objections
Claims 13-14 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits. Examiners note: Claims 13 & 14 are dependent on claim 11 (Claim 12 is dependent upon itself See 35 USC 112b below) which is dependent from claim 6 which is dependent from claim 5. Claim 5 depends from claims 1 or 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It is not clear in the specification or in the drawings how the invention is being utilized to remove or clear a well structure. The specification is discloses that the tool can be used for removal or clearance of well structures, but at such a high level it is unclear how it is functionally removing or clearance of well structures other than use of slips as a functional component. While Slips may be used in removing or clearance of well structures it is unclear how the invention combines the chemical heater with the slips in a way for one reasonably skilled in the art to operate the invention in the manner claimed.
Therefore, as it is unclear how the claimed invention is removing or clearing well structures claims 3 & 22 are rejected on this basis.
Claims 6-20 and 24-28 are rejected on this basis.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-12, 15-20, 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11
The metes and bounds of claim 11 are ambiguous as the claim language refers to “at least one of blocks” while prior limitations in the claim language state “one or more solid blocks”. It is not clear if these blocks are the same solid blocks or an introduction of a new block to the claim language. Therefore, as it is not clear if “one or more solid blocks” is the same as “at least one blocks” in the claim language the metes and bounds of claim 11 are unclear. Examiner assumes that the blocks are the same but recommends keeping language consistent such as “one or more solid blocks” and “at least one solid block” to clarify language.
Claim 11 is rejected on this basis.
Any claims dependent from claim 11 are rejected on this basis
Claim 12
The metes and bounds of claim 12 are unclear as the claim is dependent on itself and it is unclear if it depends from independent claims 1 or 3, or any dependent claims 2, 4-11. Therefore, as it is unclear what claim 12 is dependent from the metes and bounds are unclear. Examiner assumes claim 12 is meant to depend from claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected on this basis.
Any claims dependent from claim 12 are rejected on this basis
Claim 15
The metes and bounds of claim 15 are unclear as the claim states “at least one functional component” however, both independent claims 1 & 3 previously established antecedent basis for “at least one functional component”. As antecedent basis was already established for at least one functional component in the independent claims 1 & 3 it creates an ambiguity if claim 15 is attempting to introduce a new functional component or referring the prior functional component.
Claim 15 is rejected on this basis.
Any claims dependent from claim 15 are rejected on this basis
Claims 16-20 & 25-28
Claims 16-20 & 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim. Claims 16-20 refer to both the singular and plural of component when referring to the “at least one functional component” and is ambiguous if the claim language is claiming at least one or specifically a plurality of functional components. Examiner suggests consistent language and clarifying language between the singular and plural of component.
Claim 16-20 & 25-28 is rejected on this basis.
Claims 26 & 27
Claim 26 & 27 recites the limitation "the expandable base" and “the assembly component” in line two of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 26 & 27 are written as to be dependent from claim 25 which positively recites “an expandable base” and “an assembly component” however, Claims 26 & 27 are dependent from claims 21 or 22 where the assembly component and expandable base have not been positively recited in the claim language.
Claims 26 & 27 are rejected on this basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 21 are allowed.
Claims 3 & 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 5-20 are rejected as depending from claim 3.
Claims 23-28 are rejected as depending from claim 22.
Claims 11-12, 15-20, 25-28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Deployment of chemical heaters are well known in the art of wellbore exploration and operations. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Zhang (US Pub No 20200362662) or Head (US Pub No 20230220740). This art, alone or in combination, discloses various structures related to deploying a downhole tool with a chemical heater or thermite to apply a plug or remove wellbore structures or obstructions utilizing various recited features including but not limited to, such as a chemical reaction heat source within a housing, a gas generating additive, a function component and associated actuator. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically combined structure and steps regarding the specific positional relationships and operations between each recited structure in operation, such as that each actuator is arranged such that gas generated during the reaction of the chemical reaction heat source is harnessed to drive the actuator. It could be argued that the individual structure is generally known or easily conceived in the art and thus, could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural relationships and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures. Furthermore, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner could find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg 9-11, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to claims 1 & 3 & 21-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 1 & 3 & 21-22 has been withdrawn.
The drawing objection has been withdrawn.
The original objection to multiple dependent claims for claims 6-20 & 14-28 has been withdrawn.
However, Claims 13-14 are still objected to as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See claim objection above.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112(a), Examiner respectfully disagrees the amendments overcome the current 35 USC 112(a) rejection as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 3 & 22 refer to an assembly and method of use for removing a wellbore structure from a target region, however the specification and claimed structure do not describe how the structure is integrated into removal of a well debris or components downhole. Simply put claims 3 & 22 are structurally identical to claims 1 and 21 and while apparatus and method of deployment of the plug (claims 1 and 22) is adequately described, claims 3 and 22 are not disclosed as to the structure or composition of the downhole apparatus nor how the method of using the apparatus is achieved. Therefore the arguments and amendments in regards to claims 3 and 22 to overcome the 35 USC 112(a) rejection are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Nicholas D Wlodarski whose telephone number is (571)272-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/NICHOLAS D WLODARSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672