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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1,2,4-8,10-12,14-18,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022155497 to Rajaram et al. in view of Burgos et al. 20150096752 and Stout et al. 4611660 .
Referring to claim 1, Rajaram discloses an apparatus for measuring orientation of a downhole perforating gun system, the apparatus comprising: a housing or platform ( 22) for attachment to an interior of a perforating gun, a loading tube, or shape charges for a perforation wireline; at least one sensor (107) configured to measure orientation information of the perforating gun, the loading tube, or the shape charges, wherein the at least one sensor includes one or more of a gyroscope, accelerometer, or magnetometer; at least one controller ( see 106) that controls the at least one sensor; and a communications interface (wireline armor) for communicating the measured orientation information to one or more electronic devices communicatively coupled to the apparatus , wherein the at least one controller is configured to: cause transmission, using the communications interface, of the orientation information, which corresponds to an orientation of at least one of the perforating gun, the loading tube, or the shape charges, to the one or more electronic devices (see paragraph 29 and figure 3, at box 205); and initiate a firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges based on a signal received from at least one of the one or more electronic devices (see box 211). Rajaram does not disclose the controller is configured to receive a transmission indicating whether or not the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is confirmed based on an indication, using the at least one sensor, of whether or not the perforating gun or the shape charges has moved due to a force of a firing event; and initiate a re-firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges in response to receiving the transmission indicating that the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is not confirmed. Burgos teaches sending confirmation of a firing event using an accelerometer (see paragraph 0029). Stout teaches refiring a perforation gun after indication that a firing event has not occurred (see claim 12). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus disclosed by Rajaram to have the controller configured to receive a transmission indicating whether or not the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is confirmed based on an indication, using the at least one sensor, of whether or not the perforating gun or the shape charges has moved due to a force of a firing event; and initiate a re-firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges in response to receiving the transmission indicating that the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is not confirmed in view of the teachings of Burgos and Stout, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to know on the surface if a firing event has occurred and to refire if the event has not occurred in order to complete the perforation process.
Referring to claims 2 and 12, Rajaram discloses wherein the apparatus is at least part of an perforation switch (22) that initiates a perforation of the perforating gun.
Referring to claims 4 and 14, Rajaram discloses the at least one controller ( microprocess of circuit board) is further configured to cause transmission, to the one or more electronic devices or another downhole controller, of data corresponding to the measured orientation information of the shape charges (see box 205).
Referring to claims 5 and 15, Rajaram discloses the at least one controller (106) is further configured to receive data from the one or more electronic devices corresponding to an orientation range allowed to perforate the shape charges (see box 206 surface system sends signal is orientation is within desire range).
Referring to claim 6 and 16, Rajaram discloses the measured orientation information is measured in three degrees of freedom (see paragraph 35, sensor can be a 3 axis accelerometer).
Referring to claims 7 and 17, Rajaram discloses the at least one sensor is configured to measure the orientation information in real-time or based on an adjustable transmission rate (see paragraph 0035).
Referring to claims 8 and 18, Rajaram discloses the at least one controller is further configured to receive an acceptable orientation range to initiate perforation (see box 206).
Referring to claims 10 and 20, Rajaram, as modified, does not specifically teach the initiating of the re- firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges includes switching to using a different perforating gun or different shape charges. Stout teaches the refiring sequence include using a different perforating gun or charge if the an element has malfunctioned or is defective (see Abstract). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus or method disclosed by Rajaram to have the initiating of the re- firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges includes switching to using a different perforating gun or different shape charges in view of the teaching of Stout with a reasonable expectation of success if the perforating gun or charge is defective.
Referring to claim 11, Rajaram discloses a method comprising: sending a downhole perforating gun system (10) into a portion of a wellbore, the downhole perforating gun system including an apparatus having a housing or platform (22) for attachment to an interior of a perforating gun, a loading tube, or shape charges for a perforation wireline; measuring, using at least one sensor (107) of the apparatus , orientation information of the perforating gun, the loading tube, or the shape charges, wherein the at least one sensor includes one or more of a gyroscope, accelerometer, or magnetometer; transmitting, by a controller (106) of the apparatus that controls the at least one sensor and using a communications interface of the apparatus, the orientation information, which corresponds to an orientation of at least one of the perforating gun, the loading tube, or the shape charges, to one or more electronic devices communicatively coupled to the apparatus (see box 205); and initiating a firing sequence of the perforating gun or shape charges based on a signal received from at least one of the one or more electronic devices (see box 211). Rajaram does not disclose receiving a transmission indicating whether or not the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is confirmed based on an indication, using the at least one sensor, of whether or not the perforating gun or the shape charges has moved due to a force of a firing event; and initiating a re-firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges in response to receiving the transmission indicating that the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is not confirmed. Burgos teaches sending confirmation of a firing event using an accelerometer (see paragraph 0029). Stout teaches refiring a perforation gun after indication that a firing event has not occurred (see claim 12). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Rajaram to receive a transmission indicating whether or not the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is confirmed based on an indication, using the at least one sensor, of whether or not the perforating gun or the shape charges has moved due to a force of a firing event; and initiate a re-firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges in response to receiving the transmission indicating that the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is not confirmed in view of the teachings of Burgos and Stout, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to know on the surface if a firing event has occurred and to refire if the event has not occurred in order to complete the perforation process.
Claim(s) 1,3-5,7,8,11,13-15,17,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022184731 to Eitschberger in view of Burgos et al. 20150096752 and Stout et al. 4611660.
Referring to claim 1, Eitschberger discloses an apparatus for measuring orientation of a downhole perforating gun system, the apparatus comprising: a housing or platform ( see fig. 25, 2512) for attachment to an interior of a perforating gun, a loading tube, or shape charges for a perforation wireline; at least one sensor (see paragraph 0119) configured to measure orientation information of the perforating gun, the loading tube, or the shape charges, wherein the at least one sensor includes one or more of a gyroscope, accelerometer, or magnetometer (see paragraph 0166); at least one controller ( see paragraph 0119, microprocessor) that controls the at least one sensor; and a communications interface for communicating the measured orientation information to one or more electronic devices communicatively coupled to the apparatus (see paragraph 0166), wherein the at least one controller is configured to: cause transmission, using the communications interface, of the orientation information, which corresponds to an orientation of at least one of the perforating gun, the loading tube, or the shape charges, to the one or more electronic devices (see paragraph 0166); and initiate a firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges based on a signal received from at least one of the one or more electronic devices (see paragraph 0165). Eitschberger does not disclose the controller is configured to receive a transmission indicating whether or not the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is confirmed based on an indication, using the at least one sensor, of whether or not the perforating gun or the shape charges has moved due to a force of a firing event; and initiate a re-firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges in response to receiving the transmission indicating that the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is not confirmed. Burgos teaches sending confirmation of a firing event using an accelerometer (see paragraph 0029). Stout teaches refiring a perforation gun after indication that a firing event has not occurred (see claim 12). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus disclosed by Eitschberger to have the controller configured to receive a transmission indicating whether or not the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is confirmed based on an indication, using the at least one sensor, of whether or not the perforating gun or the shape charges has moved due to a force of a firing event; and initiate a re-firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges in response to receiving the transmission indicating that the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is not confirmed in view of the teachings of Burgos and Stout, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to know on the surface if a firing event has occurred and to refire if the event has not occurred in order to complete the perforation process.
Referring to claims 3 and 13, Eitschberger discloses wherein the apparatus is at least part of an electronic detonator (202) disposed inside of the perforating gun.
Referring to claims 4 and 14, Eitschberger discloses the at least one controller ( microprocess of circuit board) is further configured to cause transmission, to the one or more electronic devices or another downhole controller, of data corresponding to the measured orientation information of the shape charges (see paragraph 0166).
Referring to claims 5 and 15, Eitschberger discloses the at least one controller is further configured to receive data from the one or more electronic devices corresponding to an orientation range allowed to perforate the shape charges ( see paragraph 0166, information from other devices may define the predetermined threshold).
Referring to claims 7 and 17, Eitschberger discloses the at least one sensor is configured to measure the orientation information in real-time or based on an adjustable transmission rate (see paragraph 0166).
Referring to claims 8 and 18, Eitschberger discloses the at least one controller is further configured to receive an acceptable orientation range to initiate perforation (( see paragraph 0166, information from other devices may define the predetermined threshold that is used by circuit board).
Referring to claim 11, Eitschberger discloses a method comprising: sending a downhole perforating gun system (102) into a portion of a wellbore, the downhole perforating gun system including an apparatus having a housing or platform (2512) for attachment to an interior of a perforating gun, a loading tube, or shape charges for a perforation wireline; measuring, using at least one sensor of the apparatus (see paragraph 0119), orientation information of the perforating gun, the loading tube, or the shape charges, wherein the at least one sensor includes one or more of a gyroscope, accelerometer, or magnetometer (see paragraph 0166); transmitting, by a controller of the apparatus that controls the at least one sensor and using a communications interface of the apparatus, the orientation information, which corresponds to an orientation of at least one of the perforating gun, the loading tube, or the shape charges, to one or more electronic devices communicatively coupled to the apparatus (see paragraph 0166); and initiating a firing sequence of the perforating gun or shape charges based on a signal received from at least one of the one or more electronic devices (see paragraph 0166). Eitschberger does not disclose receiving a transmission indicating whether or not the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is confirmed based on an indication, using the at least one sensor, of whether or not the perforating gun or the shape charges has moved due to a force of a firing event; and initiating a re-firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges in response to receiving the transmission indicating that the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is not confirmed. Burgos teaches sending confirmation of a firing event using an accelerometer (see paragraph 0029). Stout teaches refiring a perforation gun after indication that a firing event has not occurred (see claim 12). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Eitschberger to receive a transmission indicating whether or not the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is confirmed based on an indication, using the at least one sensor, of whether or not the perforating gun or the shape charges has moved due to a force of a firing event; and initiate a re-firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges in response to receiving the transmission indicating that the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is not confirmed in view of the teachings of Burgos and Stout, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to know on the surface if a firing event has occurred and to refire if the event has not occurred in order to complete the perforation process.
Claim(s) 1,4,5,7-9,11,14,15,17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eitschberger et al. 20220268135 in view of Burgos et al. 20150096752 and Stout et al. 4611660.
Referring to claim 1, Eitschberger et al. discloses an apparatus for measuring orientation of a downhole perforating gun system, the apparatus comprising: a housing or platform ( see fig. 19, at 101) for attachment to an interior of a perforating gun, a loading tube, or shape charges for a perforation wireline; at least one sensor (200) configured to measure orientation information of the perforating gun, the loading tube, or the shape charges, wherein the at least one sensor includes one or more of a gyroscope, accelerometer, or magnetometer (see paragraph 0075); at least one controller (202) that controls the at least one sensor; and a communications interface (201) for communicating the measured orientation information to one or more electronic devices (199) communicatively coupled to the apparatus , wherein the at least one controller is configured to: cause transmission, using the communications interface, of the orientation information, which corresponds to an orientation of at least one of the perforating gun, the loading tube, or the shape charges, to the one or more electronic devices (see paragraph 0076); and initiate a firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges based on a signal received from at least one of the one or more electronic devices (see paragraph 0076). Eitschberger et al. does not disclose the controller is configured to receive a transmission indicating whether or not the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is confirmed based on an indication, using the at least one sensor, of whether or not the perforating gun or the shape charges has moved due to a force of a firing event; and initiate a re-firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges in response to receiving the transmission indicating that the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is not confirmed. Burgos teaches sending confirmation of a firing event using an accelerometer (see paragraph 0029). Stout teaches refiring a perforation gun after indication that a firing event has not occurred (see claim 12). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus disclosed by Eitschberger et al. to have the controller configured to receive a transmission indicating whether or not the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is confirmed based on an indication, using the at least one sensor, of whether or not the perforating gun or the shape charges has moved due to a force of a firing event; and initiate a re-firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges in response to receiving the transmission indicating that the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is not confirmed in view of the teachings of Burgos and Stout, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to know on the surface if a firing event has occurred and to refire if the event has not occurred in order to complete the perforation process.
Referring to claims 4 and 14, Eitschberger et al. discloses the at least one controller (202) is further configured to cause transmission, to the one or more electronic devices or another downhole controller, of data corresponding to the measured orientation information of the shape charges (see paragraph 0076).
Referring to claims 5 and 15, Eitschberger et al. discloses the at least one controller is further configured to receive data from the one or more electronic devices corresponding to an orientation range allowed to perforate the shape charges ( see paragraph 0076).
Referring to claims 7 and 17, Eitschberger et al. discloses the at least one sensor 200 is configured to measure the orientation information in real-time or based on an adjustable transmission rate .
Referring to claims 8 and 18, Eitschberger et al. discloses the at least one controller is further configured to receive an acceptable orientation range to initiate perforation (( see paragraph 0076).
Referring to claim 9 and 19, Eitschberger et al. discloses the acceptable orientation range to initiate perforation is +/- 20 degrees from a center alignment (see paragraph 0076, range is about 20 degree range of rotation).
Referring to claim 11, Eitschberger et al. discloses a method comprising: sending a downhole perforating gun system (139) into a portion of a wellbore, the downhole perforating gun system including an apparatus having a housing or platform (101) for attachment to an interior of a perforating gun, a loading tube, or shape charges for a perforation wireline; measuring, using at least one sensor of the apparatus (200), orientation information of the perforating gun, the loading tube, or the shape charges, wherein the at least one sensor includes one or more of a gyroscope, accelerometer, or magnetometer (see paragraph 0075); transmitting, by a controller of the apparatus that controls the at least one sensor and using a communications interface of the apparatus, the orientation information, which corresponds to an orientation of at least one of the perforating gun, the loading tube, or the shape charges, to one or more electronic devices communicatively coupled to the apparatus (see paragraph 0076); and initiating a firing sequence of the perforating gun or shape charges based on a signal received from at least one of the one or more electronic devices (see paragraph 0076). Eitschberger et al. does not disclose receiving a transmission indicating whether or not the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is confirmed based on an indication, using the at least one sensor, of whether or not the perforating gun or the shape charges has moved due to a force of a firing event; and initiating a re-firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges in response to receiving the transmission indicating that the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is not confirmed. Burgos teaches sending confirmation of a firing event using an accelerometer (see paragraph 0029). Stout teaches refiring a perforation gun after indication that a firing event has not occurred (see claim 12). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Eitschberger et al. to receive a transmission indicating whether or not the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is confirmed based on an indication, using the at least one sensor, of whether or not the perforating gun or the shape charges has moved due to a force of a firing event; and initiate a re-firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges in response to receiving the transmission indicating that the firing sequence of the perforating gun or the shape charges is not confirmed in view of the teachings of Burgos and Stout, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to know on the surface if a firing event has occurred and to refire if the event has not occurred in order to complete the perforation process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
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 GIOVANNA WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7027. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am- 5 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.
/Giovanna Wright/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672