Detailed Action
The following is a final rejection made in response to the Applicant’s response dated August 31st 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . No substantive amendments were submitted in response to the previous non-final action.
Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s Amendments/Remarks
The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s remarks traversing the previous rejection and respectfully finds them to be unpersuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments begin with an assertion that neither Haliburton and Wyman fail to teach or suggest erosion resistance, thereby presumably disqualifying their respective metal powders from meeting the “including an erosion metal resistant powder” limitation of claim 1.
The Applicant’s specification states that “perforation holes having an erosion resistant surface would be beneficial” (para. [0007]) and that a principal aim of this feature is so that “the erosion resistant material 101 is deposited around and within the perforation hole 420.” (para. [0038]). When investigating what this material is, the Applicant’s specification provides further guidance and states that “[t]he powder blend 130 includes at least one erosion resistant material 101 (FIGS. 5 and 6) such as carbide powders or nitride powders. Powdered carbide may include tungsten carbide, titanium carbide, tantalum carbide, boron carbide, or any other carbide material.” (para. [0035]).
Contrary to the Applicant’s assertion that “the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness”1, a prima facie case of obviousness in accordance with MPEP § 21412 was in fact set forth in the previous non-final action.
To make a prima facie case of obviousness, three steps are required by the Examiner: (a) determine the scope and content of the prior art, (b) ascertain the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and (c) resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. These are referred to in the MPEP as Graham inquiries. Following these steps, some rationale must be presented as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the combination of the prior art as obvious.
Regarding step (a), the Examiner reviewed the Applicant’s specification to understand what was being claimed and, after understanding what precisely the Applicant was claiming, two analogous prior art references, i.e. related to the field of shaped charges and shaped charge liners, were identified WO 2015/0126375 (“HALLIBURTON”) and US Pat. No. 3,375,108 (“WYMAN”).
Regarding step (b), the Examiner reviewed the claims and, based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims consistent with the specification, determined what the primary reference (Halliburton) taught and also where it failed to anticipate the claims. The Examiner then took Halliburton’s deficiencies with respect to the claims and explained how the secondary reference (Wyman) prevented these deficiencies from being considered as novel advances in the art.
Lastly, regarding step (c), the Examiner proposed how a person of ordinary skill would combine the teachings of Halliburton with what was already known and established by Wyman. MPEP § 2141, sect. II, sub sect. C states “"[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." [550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)] at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.” The Examiner properly asserted how a person of ordinary skill would apply the teachings of Wyman onto Halliburton and provided a motivating rationale, found within Wyman, to do so.
During step (a), the Applicant’s specification was reviewed in part to determine what the Applicant means by “erosion resistant metal powder”. The Applicant’s specification specifically states that tungsten carbide powder is an erosion resistant metal powder consistent with the aims of the Applicant’s own invention (see para. [0035]). The Examiner identifies a secondary reference, Wyman, and relies on Wyman to establish that the prior art already recognizes the use of tungsten carbide powder in shaped charge liners.
As part of step (b) the Examiner states all the relevant limitations that Halliburton teaches and also states that it fails to teach an erosion resistant metal powder that is consistent with the Applicant’s understanding of what an erosion resistant metal powder is.
As part of step (c), the Examiner then sets forth a motivation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would seek to combine the relevant teachings of Wyman into Halliburton and then cites a motivation to do so.
MPEP § 2141, sect. III states “If the search of the prior art and the resolution of the Graham factual inquiries reveal that an obviousness rejection may be made using the familiar teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) rationale, then such a rejection is appropriate.” The Examiner’s rejection clearly establishes what was taught by both references, presented a suggestion for how to combine them, and then subsequently provided a motivation for doing so.
The rejection is considered to be a prima facie case of obviousness consistent with the guidelines provided by MPEP § 2141.
The Applicant’s suggestion that the tungsten carbide taught by Wyman is disqualified from being considered as an erosion resistant metal powder contradicts the Applicant’s specification, which specifically cites tungsten carbide powder as an exemplary material as such. The mere fact that Wyman does not cite the specific words “erosion resistant powder” in characterizing this tungsten carbide powder does not make it any less applicable or equivalent to the actual material the Applicant is referring to.
Furthermore, the entirety of Wyman is not being relied upon in the Examiners prima facie case for obviousness. In the rejection, the relevance of Wyman was to establish that, prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, the use of tungsten carbide in shaped charge liners was already known. Halliburton bears the weight of teaching most of the Applicant’s claimed invention while Wyman is introduced in the obviousness rejection as a secondary reference specifically to address the deficiencies of Halliburton and to establish why the differences between Halliburton and the claims are considered to be obvious. The broader teachings of Wyman do not invalidate the fact that it establishes the use of tungsten carbide powder in shaped charge liners as prior art. This fact is the reason Wyman was relied upon as a secondary reference and not a primary reference. The Applicant finding a different intended use for that tungsten carbide powder does not make it novel and distinct.
MPEP § 2144 states that “[t]he strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination.”3 The Examiner’s rationale for combining references, also found in Wyman, establish an advantage and expected beneficial result that would result therefrom (by yielding a substantially solid cone of near-maximum density in an annealed condition).
For at least these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims remain in unpatentable form. In lieu of any substantive amendments to the claims, the rejection previously applied has been reiterated herein in this final action on the merits.
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 Pat. No. 3,375,108 (hereinafter referred to as “WYMAN”).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 9 and 11, 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 explosive4 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).
However, in as much the Halliburton reference teaches, it fails to explicitly teach that the powder blend includes an erosion resistant metal powder including at least one of powdered carbide material or powdered nitride material, namely powdered tungsten carbide.
While the teachings of Halliburton do not disclose these teachings, the use of powdered carbides and/or powdered nitrides is not considered to be a nonobvious distinction based on teachings found elsewhere in the prior art. Several prior art references discussing similar shaped charge liners teach that such materials may be incorporated into the liner composition during formation.
Wyman discloses a V-shaped charge liner, having a skirt and apex portion (see Figs. 2 and 3), that “may be utilized in any capacity in which such charges are employed” (col. 3, ll. 50-53) and “may also be made by intimately ball milling a refractory material, such as tungsten carbide in powder form with a ductile metal, such as cobalt in powder form” (col. 3, ll. 23-27).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant application was effectively filed, to modify the liner of Halliburton to include tungsten carbide powder, similar to Wyman, under the motivation of helping yield “a substantially solid cone of near-maximum density in an annealed condition” (col. 3, ll. 33-37).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Halliburton teaches that the powder blend includes 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).
However, in as much the Halliburton reference teaches, it fails to explicitly teach that the powder blend includes an erosion resistant metal powder including at least one of powdered carbide material or powdered nitride material.
While the teachings of Halliburton do not disclose these teachings, the use of powdered carbides and/or powdered nitrides is not considered to be a nonobvious distinction based on teachings found elsewhere in the prior art. Several prior art references discussing similar shaped charge liners teach that such materials may be incorporated into the liner composition during formation.
Wyman discloses a V-shaped charge liner, having a skirt and apex portion (see Figs. 2 and 3), that “may be utilized in any capacity in which such charges are employed” (col. 3, ll. 50-53) and “may also be made by intimately ball milling a refractory material, such as tungsten carbide in powder form with a ductile metal, such as cobalt in powder form” (col. 3, ll. 23-27).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant application was effectively filed, to modify the liner of Halliburton to include tungsten carbide powder, similar to Wyman, under the motivation of helping yield “a substantially solid cone of near-maximum density in an annealed condition” (col. 3, ll. 33-37).
Regarding claim 18, Halliburton teaches that the powder blend includes 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).
Conclusion
This action is made final. 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 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 See Applicant’s Remarks, dated August 31st 2026; p. 6, fourth paragraph
2 See sect. II – “An invention that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the relevant time is not patentable. See 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). As reiterated by the Supreme Court in KSR, the framework for the objective analysis for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 is stated in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries. The factual inquiries enunciated by the Court are as follows: (A) Determining the scope and content of the prior art; (B) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (C) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
3 See also In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.")
4 “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]
Prosecution Insights