DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Action is in response to the applicant's reply of 1/23/2026. In view of the applicant's amendments, and unless restated herein, the previously presented objections to the drawings, claims and specification, as well as all previously presented 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections, have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending. Claims 8, 9, and 11-15 are allowed.
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
The applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Beginning at page 20, the applicant argues, re the Section 112(a) rejection, that specification paragraph [0051] and Fig. 5 provide the required description of the fluid knife (claims 2 and 20). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specification paragraph [0052] provides the only description of the fluid knife function, however, the depicted structure 514 is not shown to have any structure capable of providing such function, e.g., “sweeps the surface of the cover lens (512)”. It should be noted that Batarseh778 (discussed below re the Section 103 rejection of claim 2) discloses such a fluid knife 210 and cover lens 250 in his Fig. 4A, which, by comparison with the present Fig. 5, clearly shows a lack of fluid knife structure in the present application.
With regard to the remaining Section 103 rejections, the applicant’s arguments are directed to both claims 1 and 16, thus the examiner’s response will apply with respect to both claims.
Beginning at page 29, the applicant argues, with respect to both claims 1 and 16 that the new requirement as to the placement, type, and function of the measurement apparatus are not obvious from the examiner’s combination. The examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument, in part, disputes the examiner’s summary of Batarseh294’s paragraph [0060]. The examiner respectfully disagrees, in that the examiner’s summary is accurate, i.e., varying pressure depending on a “desired” flow pattern, is equivalent to the examiner’s summary portion “to achieve a desired flow pattern”. In this regard, it should be noted that the applicant’s quote supports the rejection, as well. Batarseh294’s using the broadly stated measurement devices of paragraph [0031] for achieving various desired flow patterns of paragraph [0060] by varying gas input pressure supports the inclusion and positioning of the claimed measurement devices in the combination.
At the first full paragraph on page 30, the applicant further argues that Batarseh694 does not disclose “actively controlling variations in the flow rate of the gas input to the tool purging head 100”. This activity is not claimed in any claim, however, Batarseh694 indisputably discloses varying the purging gas pressures to achieve desired gas flow patterns, and the operator would benefit from having all dynamic information concerning the purging gas, which would include both flow rates and pressures, since those conditions are both indicative of the gas flow pattern. This is an expected use of the information, such that Batarseh294 acquires significantly more benefit from measurement devices including a gas flow rate sensor/meter than merely using such information in a debris-cleaning process, which is the applicant’s contention. In response to applicant's argument, in this regard, that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Batarseh294’s broad suggestion to provide measurement equipment necessary to vary the dynamic purging gas parameters to achieve targeted flow patterns forms ample bases for the use of these various measurement devices in the Batarseh294 system, without using knowledge obtained from the applicant’s disclosure.
Further arguments in this regard begin on page 30 and address Skinner and Moxley. The examiner’s combination does not rely on these references with respect to the newly required measurements devices discussed in the foregoing.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references (page 32), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, and as mentioned above, Batarseh294’s broad suggestion to provide measurement equipment necessary to vary the dynamic purging gas parameters to achieve targeted flow patterns forms ample bases for the use of these various measurement devices in the Batarseh294 system.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to dependent claims 2-7 and 17-20 rise or fall based on the outcome of the foregoing arguments regarding claims 1 and 16.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “deployment device” in claim 16. The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, is that numbered 206 in specification paragraph [0037].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the fluid knife (claims 2 and 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. See the related Section 112(a) rejections in this regard.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 2 and 20 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2 and 20 The drawings do not depict any structure performing the claimed function of a fluid knife and the specification merely includes a statement of function, without structure.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 6, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batarseh et al. (US20210285294) [Batarseh294], in view of Skinner et al. (US20060102343) [Skinner] and Moxley et al. (US20100044103) [Moxley].
Claim 1 Batarseh294 discloses a laser tunnelling system 1 in a wellbore 4 [Figs. 1-5B; abstract; para. 0030-0035], the system comprising:
a laser generation unit 30,100 configured to generate a laser beam 60 [Figs. 1,2; para. 0032];
a downhole tool 30,100 [Fig. 1]; and
a fiber optic cable 20 coupled to the laser generation unit and configured to convey the laser beam to the downhole tool [Fig. 1; para. 0030,0032,0038];
wherein the downhole tool comprises:
a laser head 30 that receives the laser beam, the laser head comprising:
a laser muzzle [at least a portion of 100] positioned to emit the laser beam from the laser head [Figs. 1,2];
a purging nozzle [at least a portion of 100; e.g., coaxial flow assembly 110 (with or without helical flow assembly 130)] proximate to the laser muzzle [e.g., both being integrated into structure 100] and configured to discharge a pressurized gas [Figs. 1,2; abstract; para. 0060-0065];
a pressure sensor [para. 0031], wherein the pressure sensor is configured to measure a pressure signal of the pressurized gas [para. 0031];
Batarseh294 further discloses varying the purging gas input pressure to achieve a desired flow pattern including pressure ranges in this regard [para. 0060], a motion system [at least motor 32], e.g., for vertically adjusting and/or rotating the laser tool [para. 0046,0049,0033], and that the downhole pressure sensor, a downhole temperature sensor, and “other sensors” are at least used for at identifying problems with the laser tool, leading, in some cases, to changing the operation by taking responsive, damage-preventing, corrective action [para. 0031], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose (1) that the laser tunnelling system is for in-situ permeability measurements, (2) a separate purging nozzle and laser muzzle, (3) a gas flow rate meter disposed adjacent to the laser muzzle, (4) that and the gas flow rate meter is configured to measure a flow rate of the pressurized gas, the gas flow rate meter is configured to measure a flow rate of the pressurized gas, (5) that the pressure sensor is disposed adjacent to the laser muzzle, (6) a seal pad adjacent to the laser muzzle, and (7) a 3-axis gimbal from which the laser head is mounted.
It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Accordingly, the stated use for in-situ permeability determination is given no patentable weight.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have an integrated purging nozzle and laser muzzle, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Since Batarseh294 further discloses varying the purging gas input pressure to achieve a desired flow pattern including pressure ranges in this regard [para. 0060], a motion system [at least motor 32], e.g., for vertically adjusting and/or rotating the laser tool [para. 0046,0049,0033], and that the downhole pressure sensor, a downhole temperature sensor, and “other sensors” are at least used for identifying problems with the laser tool [para. 0031], it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Batarseh294, as modified, to position a pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, and a gas flow rate sensor/meter adjacent the laser muzzle to monitor the flow rate and pressure signals of the pressurized gas as part of the desired varying of the gas flow pressure, such sensors and such sensors positioning being suitable for such monitoring and gas flow varying. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that downhole conditions would be monitored, e.g., at the laser muzzle, such muzzle being proximate the location of the exiting pressurized purging gas.
Batarseh294, as modified, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose (6) a seal pad adjacent to the laser muzzle, and (7) a 3-axis gimbal from which the laser head is mounted.
Skinner discloses a laser tunnelling system 20 having horizontally projecting laser equipment 90 with a seal pad 92 to at least partially seal with the wall [Fig. 13; para. 0087,0047,0048].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Batarseh294, as modified, to include a seal pad at the end of the horizontally projecting laser equipment [e.g., without limitation, tube 118]. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the laser beam’s encounter with the formation would be sealed from, e.g., conditions in the surrounding wellbore.
Batarseh294, as modified, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose (7) a 3-axis gimbal from which the laser head is mounted.
In addition to the above-referenced desired movability of the laser head of Batarseh294, Skinner also discloses configuring the laser head such that the beam may be directed with multiple degrees of directional freedom, e.g., about three axes [Figs. 5A-5C; para. 0065,0067-0071].
Moxley discloses using a gimbal 3005 in a configuration for achieving desired laser beam directions with respect to the x, y, and z axes, e.g., motion about the z-axis to target points in a plane established by the x and y axes [Fig. 30; para. 0221].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Batarseh294, as modified, to utilize a three-axis gimbal in a configuration enabling moveability of the laser beam disclosed by Batarseh294, as well as, the multiple degrees of directional freedom disclosed by Skinner. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that all downhole points would be targetable.
Claim 6 Batarseh294, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the purging nozzle is configured to remove dust from a path of the laser beam and cool down the laser head during operation of the laser beam [abstract; para. 0003,0034,0050,0057].
Claim 16 As discussed with respect to claim 1, Batarseh294 discloses a system in a wellbore 4 [Figs. 1-5B; abstract; para. 0030-0035], the system comprising:
a laser tunnelling system 1, comprising:
a laser generation unit 30,100 configured to generate a laser beam 60 [Figs. 1,2; para. 0032];
a downhole tool 30,100 [Fig. 1]; and
a fiber optic cable 20 coupled to the laser generation unit and configured to convey the laser beam to the downhole tool [Fig. 1; para. 0030,0032,0038];
wherein the downhole tool comprises:
a laser head 30 that receives the laser beam, the laser head comprising:
a laser muzzle [at least a portion of 100] positioned to emit the laser beam from the laser head [Figs. 1,2];
a purging nozzle [at least a portion of 100; e.g., coaxial flow assembly 110 (with or without helical flow assembly 130)] proximate to the laser muzzle [e.g., both being integrated into structure 100] and configured to discharge a pressurized gas [Figs. 1,2; abstract; para. 0060-0065];
a pressure sensor [para. 0031], wherein the pressure sensor is configured to measure a pressure signal of the pressurized gas [para. 0031]; and
a deployment device 42 configured to convey the downhole tool into the wellbore [Fig. 1; para. 0046].
Batarseh294 further discloses varying the purging gas input pressure to achieve a desired flow pattern including pressure ranges in this regard [para. 0060], a motion system [at least motor 32], e.g., for vertically adjusting and/or rotating the laser tool [para. 0046,0049,0033], and that the downhole pressure sensor, a downhole temperature sensor, and “other sensors” are at least used for at identifying problems with the laser tool, leading, in some cases, to changing the operation by taking responsive, damage-preventing, corrective action [para. 0031], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose (1) that the laser tunnelling system is for in-situ permeability measurements, (2) a separate purging nozzle and laser muzzle, (3) a gas flow rate meter disposed adjacent to the laser muzzle, wherein the pressure sensor is configured to measure a pressure signal of the pressurized gas , (4) that and the gas flow rate meter is configured to measure a flow rate of the pressurized gas, the gas flow rate meter is configured to measure a flow rate of the pressurized gas, (5) that the pressure sensor is disposed adjacent to the laser muzzle, (6) a seal pad adjacent to the laser muzzle, and (7) a 3-axis gimbal from which the laser head is mounted.
It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Accordingly, the stated use for in-situ permeability determination is given no patentable weight.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have an integrated purging nozzle and laser muzzle, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Since Batarseh294 further discloses varying the purging gas input pressure to achieve a desired flow pattern including pressure ranges in this regard [para. 0060], a motion system [at least motor 32], e.g., for vertically adjusting and/or rotating the laser tool [para. 0046,0049,0033], and that the downhole pressure sensor, a downhole temperature sensor, and “other sensors” are at least used for identifying problems with the laser tool [para. 0031], it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Batarseh294, as modified, to position a pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, and a gas flow rate sensor/meter adjacent the laser muzzle to monitor the flow rate and pressure signals of the pressurized gas as part of the desired varying of the gas flow pressure, such sensors and such sensors’ positioning being suitable for such monitoring and gas flow varying. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that downhole conditions would be monitored, e.g., at the laser muzzle, such muzzle being proximate the location of the exiting pressurized purging gas.
Batarseh294, as modified, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose (6) a seal pad adjacent to the laser muzzle, and (7) a 3-axis gimbal from which the laser head is mounted.
Skinner discloses a laser tunnelling system 20 having horizontally projecting laser equipment 90 with a seal pad 92 to at least partially seal with the wall [Fig. 13; para. 0087,0047,0048].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Batarseh294, as modified, to include a seal pad at the end of the horizontally projecting laser equipment [e.g., without limitation, tube 118]. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the laser beam’s encounter with the formation would be sealed from, e.g., conditions in the surrounding wellbore.
Batarseh294, as modified, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose (7) a 3-axis gimbal from which the laser head is mounted.
In addition to the above-referenced desired movability of the laser head of Batarseh294, Skinner also discloses configuring the laser head such that the beam may be directed with multiple degrees of directional freedom, e.g., about three axes [Figs. 5A-5C; para. 0065,0067-0071].
Moxley discloses using a gimbal 3005 in a configuration for achieving desired laser beam directions with respect to the x, y, and z axes, e.g., motion about the z-axis to target points in a plane established by the x and y axes [Fig. 30; para. 0221].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Batarseh294, as modified, to utilize a three-axis gimbal in a configuration enabling moveability of the laser beam disclosed by Batarseh294, as well as, the multiple degrees of directional freedom disclosed by Skinner. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that all downhole points would be targetable.
Claim 18 Batarseh294, as modified with respect to claim 16, discloses that the deployment device is coiled tubing [para. 0048].
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batarseh294, in view of Skinner and Moxley, and further in view of Batarseh et al. (US20140360778) [Batarseh778].
Claim 2 Batarseh294, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses a temperature sensor adjacent to the laser muzzle and configured to determine a temperature of the pressurized gas [as discussed with respect to the sensors of the claim 1 combination], and an optical element that “may direct, collimate, focus, defocus, or otherwise manipulate the direction or geometry of the laser beam 60 prior to output” [para. 0034], the optical element comprising “two or more components, such as a crystal, a lens, a mirror, a prism, a cube, a cylinder, or a cone” [para. 0055], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the laser head further comprises:
a first cover lens configured to protect the laser head;
a fluid knife proximate to the laser muzzle side of the first cover lens and configured to sweep the first cover lens;
a second cover lens positioned proximate to the first cover lens between the first cover lens and the fluid knife; and
a vacuum nozzle proximate to the laser muzzle and configured to collect dust and vapor from a path of the laser beam.
Batarseh778 discloses laser heads 35 in overlapping embodiments [Figs. 4A,4B], having a first cover lens 250,270 [para. 0062] configured to protect the laser head [para. 0055,0062];
a fluid knife 210 proximate to the laser muzzle side of the first cover lens and configured to sweep the first cover lens [para. 0055,0056,0060];
a second cover lens 260 positioned proximate to the first cover lens between the first cover lens and the fluid knife [Figs. 4A,4B; para. 0062]; and
a vacuum nozzle 230 proximate to the laser muzzle and configured to collect dust and vapor from a path of the laser beam [Figs. 4A,4B; para. 0055,0058-0060],
and further discloses a laser muzzle 45 and temperature sensor 240, both positioned and configured in a manner corresponding to the laser muzzle and temperature sensor discussed in the claim 1 combination [Fig. 3; para. 0042,0044,0046,0047].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Batarseh294, as modified, to utilize a laser muzzle and contiguous optical element with accompanying structures corresponding to those of Batarseh778, i.e., having the first and second cover lenses, fluid knife, and vacuum nozzle, positioned proximate a laser muzzle with a temperature sensor, as well as, a vacuum nozzle, as disclosed by Batarseh778. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that proper preparation of the laser beam would be provided, along with means for cleaning optical components and purging/collecting dust and vapors to enhance the performance of the laser beam.
Claim 4 Batarseh294, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the “optical element” “may direct, collimate, focus, defocus, or otherwise manipulate the direction or geometry of the laser beam 60 prior to output” [para. 0034], the optical element comprising “two or more components, such as a crystal, a lens, a mirror, a prism, a cube, a cylinder, or a cone” [para. 0055], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly delineate, with respect to such focusing, collimating, and manipulating functions, a collimating system configured to collimate the laser beam, comprising: a focusing lens configured to create a focused laser beam; a collimator positioned to receive the focused laser beam and configured to create a collimated laser beam; and a beam manipulator configured to direct the collimated laser beam.
Batarseh778 discloses the same functions and delineates a collimating system configured to collimate the laser beam, comprising: a focusing lens 120 configured to create a focused laser beam; a collimator 130 positioned to receive the focused laser beam and configured to create a collimated laser beam; and a beam manipulator 105 configured to direct the collimated laser beam [Fig. 4A; abstract; para. 0009,0014,0018,0050-0054].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Batarseh294, as modified, to enable its collimating, focusing, and beam manipulation functions with the collimator, focus lens, and beam manipulator configuration disclosed by Batarseh778. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that known components for accomplishing such functions would be in place.
Claim 5 Batarseh294, as modified with respect to claim 4, discloses that a beam size of the laser beam is controlled by the collimating system [e.g., a smaller diameter; para. 0054].
Claim 7 Batarseh294, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses a fiber optic cable 20 [para. 0030,0038] and that system 1 materials, generally, are resistant to wellbore temperatures and pressures [para. 0052], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose an insulation cable, the insulation cable comprising the fiber optic cable, wherein the insulation cable is selected to resist a high temperature and a high pressure.
Batarseh778 discloses an insulation cable, the insulation cable 70 comprising the fiber optic cable, wherein the insulation cable is selected to resist a high temperature and a high pressure [Fig. 4A; para. 0009,0044,0049].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Batarseh294, as modified, to enable its fiber optic cable protection by utilizing the insulation cable of Batarseh778. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the fiber optic cable would be protected from high temperatures and pressures.
Claim 17 Batarseh294, as modified with respect to claim 16, discloses that the “optical element” “may direct, collimate, focus, defocus, or otherwise manipulate the direction or geometry of the laser beam 60 prior to output” [para. 0034], the optical element comprising “two or more components, such as a crystal, a lens, a mirror, a prism, a cube, a cylinder, or a cone” [para. 0055], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly delineate, with respect to such focusing, collimating, and manipulating functions, a collimating system configured to collimate the laser beam, comprising: a focusing lens configured to create a focused laser beam; a collimator positioned to receive the focused laser beam and configured to create a collimated laser beam; and a beam manipulator configured to direct the collimated laser beam.
Batarseh778 discloses the same functions and delineates a collimating system configured to collimate the laser beam, comprising: a focusing lens 120 configured to create a focused laser beam; a collimator 130 positioned to receive the focused laser beam and configured to create a collimated laser beam; and a beam manipulator 105 configured to direct the collimated laser beam [Fig. 4A; abstract; para. 0009,0014,0018,0050-0054].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Batarseh294, as modified, to enable its collimating, focusing, and beam manipulation functions with the collimator, focus lens, and beam manipulator configuration disclosed by Batarseh778. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that known components for accomplishing such functions would be in place.
Claim 20 Batarseh294, as modified with respect to claim 16, discloses a temperature sensor adjacent to the laser muzzle and configured to determine a temperature of the pressurized gas [as discussed with respect to the sensors of the claim 16 combination], and an optical element that “may direct, collimate, focus, defocus, or otherwise manipulate the direction or geometry of the laser beam 60 prior to output” [para. 0034], the optical element comprising “two or more components, such as a crystal, a lens, a mirror, a prism, a cube, a cylinder, or a cone” [para. 0055], and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the laser head further comprises:
a first cover lens configured to protect the laser head;
a fluid knife proximate to the laser muzzle side of the first cover lens and configured to sweep the first cover lens;
a second cover lens positioned proximate to the first cover lens between the first cover lens and the fluid knife; and
a vacuum nozzle proximate to the laser muzzle and configured to collect dust and vapor from a path of the laser beam.
Batarseh778 discloses laser heads 35 in overlapping embodiments [Figs. 4A,4B], having a first cover lens 250,270 [para. 0062] configured to protect the laser head [para. 0055,0062];
a fluid knife 210 proximate to the laser muzzle side of the first cover lens and configured to sweep the first cover lens [para. 0055,0056,0060];
a second cover lens 260 positioned proximate to the first cover lens between the first cover lens and the fluid knife [Figs. 4A,4B; para. 0062]; and
a vacuum nozzle 230 proximate to the laser muzzle and configured to collect dust and vapor from a path of the laser beam [Figs. 4A,4B; para. 0055,0058-0060],
and further discloses a laser muzzle 45 and temperature sensor 240, both positioned and configured in a manner corresponding to the laser muzzle and temperature sensor discussed in the claim 1 combination [Fig. 3; para. 0042,0044,0046,0047].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Batarseh294, as modified, to utilize a laser muzzle and contiguous optical element with accompanying structures corresponding to those of Batarseh778, i.e., having the first and second cover lenses, fluid knife, and vacuum nozzle, positioned proximate a laser muzzle with a temperature sensor, as well as, a vacuum nozzle, as disclosed by Batarseh778. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that proper preparation of the laser beam would be provided, along with means for cleaning optical components and purging/collecting dust and vapors to enhance the performance of the laser beam.
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batarseh294, in view of Skinner, Moxley, and Batarseh778, and further in view of Zediker et al. (WO2013019959) [Zediker].
Claim 3 Batarseh294, as modified with respect to claim 2, discloses a rotation joint configured to rotate the laser head over a first degree of freedom and a tilt joint configured to tilt the laser head over a third degree of freedom, and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the 3-axis gimbal comprises: a pivot joint and a pivot arm configured to pivot the laser head over a second degree of freedom.
Zediker discloses a downhole laser tool 3000 wherein a pivot arm 3008 and joint providing a pivot for directing the laser beam 3009 [Fig. 30; para. 00263,00167].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Batarseh294, as modified, to include a pivot arm as part of the 3-axis gimbal configured to pivot the laser head over a second degree of freedom, as disclosed by Zedicke. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the pivot arm would provide a known method for pivoting a laser head in a well.
Claim 19 Batarseh294, as modified with respect to claim 16, discloses a rotation joint configured to rotate the laser head over a first degree of freedom and a tilt joint configured to tilt the laser head over a third degree of freedom, and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the 3-axis gimbal comprises: a pivot joint and a pivot arm configured to pivot the laser head over a second degree of freedom.
Zediker discloses a downhole laser tool 3000 wherein a pivot arm 3008 and joint providing a pivot for directing the laser beam 3009 [Fig. 30; para. 00263,00167].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Batarseh294, as modified, to include a pivot arm as part of the 3-axis gimbal configured to pivot the laser head over a second degree of freedom, as disclosed by Zedicke. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the pivot arm would provide a known method for pivoting a laser head in a well.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, and 11-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: In combination with the other limitations of claim 8, the differences between the now required placement, type, and use of sensors and the Le sensors 56, Le being previously referenced in support of the determination of permeability of a zone. Batarseh294 does not disclose permeability determination from sensor measurements. Lagus et al. (US4353240) discloses determining reservoir permeability using temperature, injected, regulated, and pressured gas, and pressure measurements [Figs 1,3; abstract], but does not disclose the required sensors in association with a laser-based system. Schulz et al. (US20100326659) discloses a laser generation system having a laser head for making sealed tunnels/perforation, the laser head having at least three degrees of freedom [Figs. 1-3,6A-6C], but does not disclose the required sensors. Sampson et al. (US20170167233) discloses the advantages of perforations having a larger entrance diameter [Fig. 1; abstract; para. 0027], but does not disclose the required sensors. Price (US4227582) discloses laser perforating through a seal pad 60 [Fig. 1], but does not disclose the required sensors.
Claims 9 and 11-15 depend from claim 8.
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.”
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 GEORGE STERLING GRAY whose telephone number is (313)446-4820. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4 Eastern - M-F.
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.
/GEORGE S GRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676