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 .
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 15117228, filed on 8/8/2016.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/17/2025 is being considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second perforating gun assembly (claim 4), the detonating cord (claims 14 and 19), and the at least one shaped charge (claims 15 and 21) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment to the claims field 3/26/2025 has been entered:
Claims 1-21 are active.
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.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/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 1 recites the limitation “the perforating gun housing” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A perforating gun assembly was previously recited in line 2, but a perforating gun housing was not previously recited. The examiner notes that “the perforating gun housing” is also recited in lines 8-9.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the perforating gun housing” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Did applicant intend to refer to the housing of the perforating gun assembly? If so, it is the examiner’s belief that instead reciting, for example, “the
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a detonator” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A detonator was already recited in claim 15. It is the examiner’s belief that instead reciting, for example, “wherein the detonator is disposed within the detonator positioning device”, would be sufficient to address the issue.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a detonator” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A detonator was already recited in claim 15.
Claim(s) 2-14, 17-18, and 20-21 is/are rejected for depending from an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-11, and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lanclos et al. (US 20120199352), herein ‘Lanclos’.
Regarding claim 1, Lanclos discloses a detonator positioning device (70) for positioning a detonator (88) in a perforating gun assembly (68, 116, 622), comprising:
a hollow body (71) adapted for receiving the detonator (Fig. 3); and
at least one leg (90) adapted to stabilize a first end (91) of the hollow body in the perforating gun assembly (Fig. 3);
wherein, when inserted within the perforating gun assembly, the detonator positioning device is configured to provide at least one wireless electrical contact configured for electrical connection merely by physically touching an electrical component within the perforating gun assembly (Fig. 3; via upstream and downstream spring connectors; par. 22-23 and 25-26).
Regarding claim 2, Lanclos discloses wherein the detonator positioning device includes a first electrical contact (downstream spring connector; par. 25) configured for making electrical contact with a first electrical connector (Fig. 3; par. 25) of the perforating gun assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Lanclos discloses wherein the first electrical contact is a biased electrical contact (downstream spring connector; par. 25).
Regarding claim 4, Lanclos discloses wherein the perforating gun assembly is a first perforating gun assembly (68, 116, 62-2; Fig. 3), and the detonator positioning device further comprises a second electrical contact (upstream spring connector; par. 25) configured for making electrical contact with a second electrical connector (par. 25; Fig. 3) of a second perforating gun assembly (621; Fig. 3), wherein the second electrical contact is a biased electrical contact (par. 25).
Regarding claim 5, Lanclos discloses wherein the first biased electrical contact and the second biased electrical contact are disposed at opposite ends of the detonator positioning device (par. 25).
Regarding claim 6, Lanclos discloses wherein the at least one leg comprises one or more protrusions (90) adapted to hold the detonator positioning device in place within the perforating gun assembly (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Lanclos discloses wherein the at least one leg is configured to fit within an end plate (Fig. 3) which is disposed in the perforating gun assembly (Fig. 3), and wherein the end plate comprises an inner cavity (92) configured to receive the at least one leg (par. 23).
Regarding claim 8, Lanclos discloses wherein the at least one leg comprises one or more protrusions (90) configured to engage the end plate (Fig. 3; par. 23).
Regarding claims 10-11, Lanclos discloses wherein the hollow body further comprises a lip adapted to further assist in stabilizing the detonator positioning device, wherein the lip is configured to abut the end plate (Figs. 3 and 5; face of body 71, from which leg 90 extends, defines a lip that engages a corresponding face in the surface in which cavity 92 is positioned).
Regarding claim 15, Lanclos discloses a perforating gun assembly (Figs. 3 and 5) comprising:
a housing (68, 116, 622) with a longitudinal bore (Fig. 3; in which at least component 70 is positioned);
at least one shaped charge (64) disposed within the housing (par. 21);
an end plate (Fig. 3) disposed within the housing; and
a detonator positioning device (70) comprising:
a hollow body (71) adapted to receive a detonator (80); and
at least one leg (90) adapted to stabilize a first end (91) of the hollow body in the housing (Fig. 3),
wherein the end plate comprises an inner cavity (92) configured to receive the detonator positioning device (par. 23); and
wherein, when inserted within the perforating gun assembly, the detonator positioning device is configured to provide at least one wireless electrical contact configured for electrical connection merely by physically touching an electrical component within the perforating gun assembly (Fig. 3; via upstream and downstream spring connectors; par. 22-23 and 25-26).
Regarding claim 16, Lanclos discloses wherein the detonator is disposed within the detonator positioning device (Fig. 3), and the detonator positioning device further comprises at least one biased electrical contact (upstream or downstream spring connectors; par. 25-26).
Regarding claim 17, Lanclos discloses wherein the at least one leg comprises one or more protrusions (90) configured to engage the end plate (Fig. 3; par. 23).
Regarding claim 18, Lanclos discloses wherein the hollow body further comprises a lip adapted to further assist in stabilizing the detonator positioning device, wherein the lip is configured to abut the end plate (Figs. 3 and 5; face of body 71, from which leg 90 extends, defines a lip that engages a corresponding face in the surface in which cavity 92 is positioned).
Regarding claim 19, Lanclos discloses wherein a detonating cord (66) is disposed in the housing (Fig. 3) and the detonator is disposed within the detonator positioning device (Fig. 3), wherein the detonator is disposed side-by-side with the detonating cord in the perforating gun assembly (Fig. 3; par. 23).
Regarding claim 20, Lanclos discloses wherein the detonator positioning device is disposed at least partially within the housing (Fig. 3), and the detonator is disposed entirely within the housing (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 21, Lanclos discloses an inner tube disposed within the housing, wherein the at least one shaped charge is held in the housing by the inner tube (Figs. 3-5).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanclos et al. (US 2012/0199352) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hill et al. (US 8256337), herein ‘Hill’.
Regarding claim 9, Lanclos does not expressly teach wherein the one or more protrusions are configured for snap-fit retention of the at least one leg to the end plate.
Hill teaches a perforating gun (6) comprising an initiator assembly (30a) including a detonator positioning device (34a, 50, 52, 53; Fig. 5) with downwardly extending snap members (52, 53) that snap fit into a receptacle (56) located in a housing (44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the one or more protrusions of Lanclos to snap-fit into the end plate as taught by Hill for the purpose of allowing for a quick connect between the detonator positioning device and the perforating gun assembly and for retaining the detonator positioning device to the perforating gun assembly in a single cohesive unit suitable for use in initiating detonation of an associated detonation cord (Hill; col. 6 lines 2-7).
Claim 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanclos et al. (US 2012/0199352) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Backhus et al. (US 2013/0125772), herein ‘Backhus’.
Regarding claims 12-13, Lanclos does not expressly teach wherein the hollow body comprises at least a first part removably connected to a second part to form an assembled hollow body, wherein the first part and the second part are configured as longitudinal halves.
Backhus teaches a perforating gun assembly (par. 212) comprising at least a non- energetics-based detonator system (NEBD; 10A) and a subassembly (234) that snaps over the communication wires of the NEBD (par. 158), wherein the subassembly is formed of two longitudinal halves (234A and 234B; Figs. 17A and 17B) removably connected to form an assembled subassembly (Fig. 17C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the hollow body of Lanclos to comprise first and second parts configured as longitudinal halves that are removably connectable as taught by Backhus since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin vs. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanclos et al. (US 2012/0199352) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Black et al. (US 2012/0247771), herein ‘Black’.
Regarding claim 14, Lanclos discloses wherein the hollow body is configured to retain the detonator so that the detonator is disposed adjacent to a detonating cord (66) in the perforating gun assembly, but does not expressly teach wherein the hollow body is configured to retain the detonator so that the detonator is disposed adjacent to and radially offset with the detonating cord in the perforating gun assembly.
Black teaches a detonator positioning device (26) comprising a hollow body (Fig. 8) for positioning a detonator (26) in a perforating gun assembly (7, 10, 12, 14), wherein the hollow body is configured to retain the detonator (Fig. 8) so that the detonator is disposed adjacent to and radially offset from (Fig. 2; par. 25) a detonating cord (18) in the perforating gun housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the detonator positioning device of Lanclos to retain the detonator so that the detonator is disposed adjacent to and radially offset from the detonating cord in the perforating gun housing as taught by Black in order to prevent the ballistic train between the detonator and the detonating cord from being completed until desired by a user (Black; par. 25), thus reducing the chances of accidental initiation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12203350, herein “the ‘350 patent”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the ‘350 patent is a narrower claim than claim 1 of the present application because claim 1 of the ‘350 patent requires at least all of the limitations of the broader claim 1 of the present application. Similarly, claim 10 of the ‘350 patent is a narrower claim than claim 15 of the present application because claim 10 of the ‘350 patent requires at least all of the limitations of the broader claim 15 of the present application
Conclusion
Claims 1-21 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN S GOMBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-4802. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/BENJAMIN S. GOMBERG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3641
/Troy Chambers/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights