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 .
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, 5-7, 11, 12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al (6,595,290) in view of Li et al (7,347,279).
George et al disclose a perforating gun 36 comprising most claimed elements including a plurality of shaped charges 32; a plurality of charge receiving structures 34 holding the shaped charges; rotational couplings 38, 40 between the shaped charges allowing relative rotation (column 5, line 65) between the charges; and a detonator with detonating cord 46 and with electrical connections. George et al fail to show the charge receiving structures having a plurality of projections that retain the shaped charge within the charge receiving structure. Li et al teaches that it is known in a perforating gun to have a plurality of projections 304 on a charge receiving structure 300 in order to hold shaped charges 10 in place within the charge receiving structure. Motivation to combine is the mere substitution of charge holding elements in order to perform the same function. To employ the teachings of Li et al on the perforating gun of George et al and have a plurality of projections on a charge receiving structure in order to hold shaped charges in place within the charge receiving structure is considered to have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application’s filing.
Claims 2-4, 8-10, 13, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. WOODROW ELDRED whose telephone number is (571)272-6901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached at 571-272-6874. 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.
/J. Woodrow Eldred/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
JWE