Detailed Action
The following is a final rejection on the merits made in response to amendments and remarks received on January 28th 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s Amendments/Remarks
The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s amendments and remarks and finds them persuasive to the end of obviating further rejection under the previously cited prior art (see non-final rejection dated October 28th 2025). The claims have been reconsidered on their merits and new patentability issues have been identified and presented in this final action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The claims cited in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2015/0126375 (hereinafter referred to as “HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES”, “HALLIBURTON”, or simply as “the reference”).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Halliburton teaches a shaped charge comprising:
a shell (102);
an explosive positioned within the shell (104);
a liner (108), defined by a liner body (see Figs. 3 and 4), positioned within the shell, wherein the liner is formed from a powder blend (“Liner 108 may be formed by sheet metal or powdered metal processes”; para. [0017]) and is dimensioned for forming a perforating jet to create a hole in a target in response to detonation of the explosive1 and the powder blend includes an erosion resistant metal powder (para. [0017] states that liner 108 may be formed from a variety of different “powdered metal processes” that include cobalt and tungsten);
the liner comprising:
an apex portion (via the convergence point of the “V” shaped liner shown in Fig. 3); and
a skirt portion extending outwardly from the apex portion (via down-sloping portions of the “V” shaped liner extending away from the apex portion shown in Fig. 3), the liner dimensioned for forming a perforating jet in response to initiation of the shaped charge to create a hole in a target1, wherein
the apex portion and the skirt portion together define a liner body (the apex and skirt portions form a singular and unified body, as shown in Figs. 3 and 4), wherein the liner body is formed from a powder blend including an erosion resistant metal powder (para. [0017] states that liner 108 may be formed from a variety of different “powdered metal processes” that include cobalt and tungsten).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Halliburton teaches that the erosion resistant metal powder is a cobalt material (see final sentence of para. [0017]).
Regarding claims 4-6, 8, 12, 13, and 15, Halliburton teaches that the powder blend further includes a binder, powdered aluminum, powdered nickel, a polymer material, and a lubricant (see final sentence of para. [0017]) that includes a mixture of powdered aluminum and powdered nickel (the same section teaches that the liner may be made of “powdered metal processes” such as aluminum and nickel “and mixtures thereof as well as mixtures including plastics, polymers, binders, lubricants, graphite, oil or other additives.”).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Halliburton teaches that the liner body is conically shaped (see Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 16, Halliburton teaches that the liner body is configured for depositing the erosion resistant material around and within the hole (being as that the functioning of the shaped charge is to create a perforating jet that penetrates through a surface to a create a wall, it necessarily is capable of “depositing the erosion resistant material (of the liner) around and within the hole” as claimed).
Regarding claim 17, Halliburton teaches a method for reducing erosion of perforation holes, comprising:
providing a shaped charge (120), wherein the shaped charge includes a shell (102) and a liner (108) and an explosive (104) positioned within the shell (see Figs. 3 and 4), wherein the liner is defined by a liner body and the liner body is formed from a powder blend including an erosion resistant material (para. [0017] states that liner 108 may be formed from a variety of different “powdered metal processes” that include cobalt and tungsten) and is dimensioned for forming a perforating jet in response to detonation of the explosive1;
deploying the shaped charge in a wellbore, detonating the explosive, and creating a first hole in a first target with the perforating jet (see para. [0012]); and
depositing the erosion resistant material around and within the hole (being as that the functioning of the shaped charge is to create a perforating jet that penetrates through a surface to a create a wall, it necessarily is capable of “depositing the erosion resistant material (of the liner) around and within the hole” as claimed).
Regarding claim 18, Halliburton teaches that the erosion resistant metal powder is a cobalt material (see final sentence of para. [0017]).
Regarding claims 19, Halliburton teaches that the first target is a wellbore casing (40; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Halliburton teaches creating a second hole with the perforating jet in a geological formation surrounding the wellbore casing; and depositing the erosion resistant material within the second hole (the shaped charge taught by Halliburton is taught to be part of a system that includes several identical shaped charges for producing a plurality of holes using the same shaped charge / perforating jet technology).
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.
The claims cited in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/0126375 (hereinafter referred to as “HALLIBURTON”) further in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0301632 (hereinafter referred to as “DYNAENERGETICS”).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Halliburton teaches that the liner includes an erosion resistant material (see rejection of claims 1 and 9 in the previous section), but fails to explicitly teach that the erosion resistant material is tungsten carbide.
While Halliburton fails to teach tungsten carbide (although the reference does teach the application of tungsten into the liner), the use of tungsten carbide specifically as a material is not considered to be a novel distinction when the prior art is considered as a whole.
Evidence of this assertion can be found in DynaEnergetics, which teaches a shaped charge liner wherein a layer of tungsten carbide is applied on an outer surface of the liner (see para. [0063]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to substitute the tungsten-based liner, as taught by Halliburton, to rely on a tungsten-carbide material, similar to that of DynaEnergetics, with the motivation of creating a liner that would result in a perforation jet having a more rigid and greater penetrating structure once it the liner has been formed following detonation of the shaped charge.
Conclusion
This action is made final. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
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 extension fee 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.
While the Examiner is available via telephone to help resolve administrative issues regarding a patent application, Applicants are encouraged to consider utilizing the USPTO’s Inventor Assistance Center for general administrative and/or procedural matters at 800-786-9199. Issues relating to patentability and/or prospective amendments may be more efficiently discussed via email correspondence subsequent to the filing of form PTO/SB/439 (“Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application”) authorizing permission for internet communication. The form is available online and may be submitted for the record along with any other response to this action. In accordance with current USPTO policy, this form must be submitted on the record prior to internet communications being authorized. A written statement by the Applicant authorizing internet communications on the record is not sufficient. In the event that a telephone conversation would be the easiest means of resolving issues related to the subject matter of a pending patent application, the Examiner may be reached by telephone at 303-297-4454. Interviews will not be granted after issuance of a final rejection unless it is to discuss an amendment that either places the application in condition for allowance or simplifies issues for appeal.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Samir Abdosh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
1 “The various explosive devices discussed herein such as detonator 82, detonating cords 78, 156, 162, boosters 122, 158, 160 and shaped charges 66, 100, 120 include explosive components that are used to enable the formation of high speed jets that penetrate through the casing”; see para. [0020]