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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites, “a voltage isolation device” in line 3, line 4 and in line 5. It is indefinite whether three different voltage isolation devices are claimed or the same. For examination purposes, any voltage isolation devices are considered.
Claim 12 recites the limitation " the voltage induced across the initiator" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lanclos (US 8,695,506, IDS Document).
Regarding Claim 1, Lanclos discloses a method for measuring the resistance of an initiator (Figures 1-5, Abstract, “Perforating system having a perforating gun” and “detonator”) comprising:
electrically isolating the initiator from a power source (by opening continuity switch 88 in 86, 82, Figures 2-4);
supplying current to the initiator (by closing continuity switch 88 in 86 and arming switch 76 and continuity switch 721 in 701, Figure 3), wherein the supplied current is less than the current necessary to initiate the initiator (Figure 3, Column 3, lines 8-15, “…The method includes inserting the perforating string into the wellbore and flowing an amount of electricity to the detonator that is below a threshold amount for initiating detonation of the detonator…”, Column 6, lines 1-6, “….testing connection integrity to the detonator 781 involves configuring the perforating system 50 as depicted in FIG. 3, i.e., closing switches 88, 761 and opening switch 90, and delivering a current large enough to be monitored, yet below the threshold necessary for initiating activation of the detonator 781..”);
detecting voltage through the initiator (voltage corresponding to current flowing through the detonator using meter 96, Figure 3, comprising 100, Figure 4, Column 6, lines 57-59, “….a meter 100 is shown in the switch assembly 70.sub.1 for measuring electrical flow or potential to the detonator 781 and through the detonator 781…..” ); and
calculating the resistance of the initiator (Figure 3, Column 6, lines 12-16, “…if no current is monitored at the meter 96 after emitting the test current, it can be an indication of an open circuit between the communication line 74 and detonator 781…”).
Regarding Claim 2, Lanclos discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising initiating the initiator (Column 4, lines 33-36, 50-54, “…circuitry (not shown) is provided within the switch assemblies 70.sub.1-n for selectively opening and/or closing the continuity switches 72.sub.1-n and/or the arming switches 76.sub.1-n in response to a signal delivered in the communication line 74”, Column 5, lines 35-42).
Regarding Claim 3, Lanclos discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising sending the measured voltage to a surface location (meter 96, coupled to controller 98 via 84, Figure 3, Figure 4, Column 6, line 65 - Column 7, line 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Lanclos discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising sending the calculated resistance of the initiator to a surface location (meter 96, coupled to controller 98 via 84, Figure 3, meter 100, Figure 4, Column 6, line 54 - Column 7, line 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Lanclos discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising determining whether the initiator is functioning correctly using the calculated resistance of the initiator (Column 6, lines 1-6, “….testing connection integrity to the detonator 781 involves configuring the perforating system 50 as depicted in FIG. 3, i.e., closing switches 88, 761 and opening switch 90, and delivering a current large enough to be monitored, yet below the threshold necessary for initiating activation of the detonator 781..”).
Regarding Claim 6, Lanclos discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising determining whether the initiator is shorted using the calculated resistance of the initiator (determining based on the meter 100 reading, Figures 3-4).
Regarding Claim 7, Lanclos discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising determining whether the initiator is present using the calculated resistance of the initiator (Figure 3, Column 6, lines 12-16, “…if no current is monitored at the meter 96 after emitting the test current, it can be an indication of an open circuit between the communication line 74 and detonator 781…”).
Regarding Claim 8, Lanclos discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising testing the initiator using the calculated resistance of the initiator (Column 6, lines 1-6, “….testing connection integrity to the detonator 781 involves configuring the perforating system 50 as depicted in FIG. 3, i.e., closing switches 88, 761 and opening switch 90, and delivering a current large enough to be monitored, yet below the threshold necessary for initiating activation of the detonator 781..”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanclos (US 8,695,506, IDS Document) in view of Souza, Jr. (US 3,611,623, IDS Document).
Regarding Claim 9, Lanclos discloses an apparatus for measuring the resistance of an initiator in a perforating gun string (Figures 1-5, Abstract) comprising:
an initiator (comprising 78, Figures 3-4) coupled to a current limiter (comprising 94) and a voltage isolation device (comprising 76, Figures 3-4);
a voltage isolation device which isolates the initiator from a power source (switch 88 isolates 78 from power source 99, Figure 3); and
a voltage measurement device (comprising 96, Figure 3, 100, Figure 4) coupled to the initiator through a voltage isolation device (96, 100 coupled to 78 via 88, Figures 3-4), wherein the measured voltage is used to calculate the resistance of the initiator (Column 6, lines 57-59, “….a meter 100 is shown in the switch assembly 70.sub.1 for measuring electrical flow or potential to the detonator 781 and through the detonator 781…..”, Column 6, lines 12-16, “…if no current is monitored at the meter 96 after emitting the test current, it can be an indication of an open circuit between the communication line 74 and detonator 781…”). Lanclos does not disclose the initiator coupled to a current limiter being via the voltage isolation device.
Souza, Jr. discloses an apparatus for measuring the resistance of an initiator in a perforating gun string (Figures 1-2, Abstract) comprising: an initiator coupled to a current limiter through a voltage isolation device (4 coupled to 8, 11 via 2, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coupe the initiator and the current limiter in the apparatus of Lanclos being via the voltage isolation device as taught by Souza, Jr. based on the type and number other circuit elements, space and operating requirements.
Regarding Claim 10, combination of Lanclos and Souza, Jr. discloses the apparatus of Claim 9 further comprising a switch (comprising 88, 72, 76, Figures 3-4), wherein the switch is responsible for initiating the initiator (by closing continuity switch 88 in 86 and arming switch 76 and continuity switch 721 in 701, Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 11, combination of Lanclos and Souza, Jr. discloses the apparatus of Claim 9, the current limiter further comprising a resistor and a constant voltage source (Souza, Jr., resistor 8, 11 and voltage source 9, 5, Figure 1), wherein the resistor has a relatively large resistance compared to the initiator’s resistance (Souza, Jr., resistor 8, 11 in the kΩ/MΩ range, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 12, combination of Lanclos and Souza, Jr. discloses the apparatus of Claim 9 wherein the voltage induced across the initiator is used to measure/calculate the resistance of the initiator (Figure 3, Column 6, lines 12-16, “…if no current is monitored at the meter 96 after emitting the test current, it can be an indication of an open circuit between the communication line 74 and detonator 781…”, Column 6, line 65 - Column 7, line 3).
Regarding Claim 13, combination of Lanclos and Souza, Jr. discloses the apparatus of Claim 9, wherein the calculated resistance of the initiator determines whether the initiator is functioning correctly (Column 6, lines 1-6, “….testing connection integrity to the detonator 781 involves configuring the perforating system 50 as depicted in FIG. 3, i.e., closing switches 88, 761 and opening switch 90, and delivering a current large enough to be monitored, yet below the threshold necessary for initiating activation of the detonator 781..”).
Regarding Claim 14, combination of Lanclos and Souza, Jr. discloses the apparatus of Claim 9, wherein the calculated resistance of the initiator determines whether the initiator is shorted (determining based on the meter 100 reading, Figures 3-4).
Regarding Claim 15, combination of Lanclos and Souza, Jr. discloses the apparatus of Claim 9, wherein the calculated resistance of the initiator determines whether the initiator is present (Figure 3, Column 6, lines 12-16, “…if no current is monitored at the meter 96 after emitting the test current, it can be an indication of an open circuit between the communication line 74 and detonator 781…”).
Regarding Claim 16, combination of Lanclos and Souza, Jr. discloses the apparatus of Claim 9, wherein the calculated resistance of the initiator tests the initiator (Column 6, lines 1-6, “….testing connection integrity to the detonator 781 involves configuring the perforating system 50 as depicted in FIG. 3, i.e., closing switches 88, 761 and opening switch 90, and delivering a current large enough to be monitored, yet below the threshold necessary for initiating activation of the detonator 781..”).
Regarding Claim 17, combination of Lanclos and Souza, Jr. discloses the apparatus of Claim 10, wherein the switch, upon receiving a signal from an operator at a surface location, measures the resistance of the initiator and transmits the measured resistance back to the operator (upon receiving signal from controller 98, closing switch 88 in 86 and arming switch 76 and continuity switch 721 in 701, Figures 3-4, Column 6, lines 1-6, “….testing connection integrity to the detonator 781 involves configuring the perforating system 50 as depicted in FIG. 3, i.e., closing switches 88, 761 and opening switch 90, and delivering a current large enough to be monitored, yet below the threshold necessary for initiating activation of the detonator 781..”, Column 6, line 65 - Column 7, line 3).
Regarding Claim 18, combination of Lanclos and Souza, Jr. discloses the apparatus of Claim 9, wherein the supplied current to the initiator is less than the no-fire current of the initiator (Figure 3, Column 3, lines 8-15, “…The method includes inserting the perforating string into the wellbore and flowing an amount of electricity to the detonator that is below a threshold amount for initiating detonation of the detonator…”).
Regarding Claim 19, combination of Lanclos and Souza, Jr. discloses the apparatus of Claim 17, further comprising a resistor and a constant voltage source (Souza, Jr., resistor 8, 11 and voltage source 9, 5, Figure 1), wherein the resistor has a relatively large resistance compared to the initiator’s resistance (Souza, Jr., resistor 8, 11 in the kΩ/MΩ range, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 20, combination of Lanclos and Souza, Jr. discloses the apparatus of Claim 19, further comprising a microcontroller (comprising 98, Figure 3) configured to automatically adjust the current supplied to the initiator (Column 4, lines 33-36, 50-54, “…circuitry (not shown) is provided within the switch assemblies 70.sub.1-n for selectively opening and/or closing the continuity switches 72.sub.1-n and/or the arming switches 76.sub.1-n in response to a signal delivered in the communication line 74”, Column 5, lines 35-42). Combination of Lanclos and Souza, Jr. does not specifically disclose adjusting the current being based on the measured resistance to optimize the accuracy of the resistance calculation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the current or other test parameter to increase/optimize the accuracy of the measurements and calculations and thus to optimize the performance of the apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shen et al. (US 5,789,951) discloses a sensing circuit coupled to a voltage source (40 coupled to VBAT, 26, Figure 2), the sensing circuit comprising voltage sensing element (40, Figure 2), a current limiter in series with a current detection resistor (42 in series with 44) and reverse connected diode across the current detecting resistor( diode 46 across 44).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-6002. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 am - 5:30 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, Crystal L Hammond can be reached at (571)270-1682. 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.
/LUCY M THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2838, 6/26/2026
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights