Detailed Action
The following is a non-final rejection made in response to a request for continued examination (RCE) received on May 26th 2026. 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.
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 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).
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
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 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. Once authorization is submitted, the Applicant may contact the Examiner at samir.abdosh@uspto.gov. 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]
Prosecution Insights