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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
On lines 4-5 of paragraph [0056], “the In one or more embodiments,” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality: On line 3 of claim 19, “geological material in same direction” should be “geological material in the same direction…” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 11 recites the limitation “a penetrating depth of one centimeter or longer.” The phrase “one centimeter or longer” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The term "or longer" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to the value of the upper bounds of the range is extended to; “or longer” can include 2 centimeters or 200 million kilometers. For purposes of examination, the term “one centimeter or more” will be considered as if written as “one centimeter.”
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 5, 8, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Richey (US 2,757,738).
With respect to independent claim 1, Richey discloses a method for sealing a wellbore, comprising:
positioning a tool including a radiation emitting device in a wellbore at a desired depth (col. 3 lines 22-35);
emitting electromagnetic radiation at one or more frequencies, wherein emitting the electromagnetic radiation includes emitting the electromagnetic radiation in a radial direction towards geological material disposed in the wellbore (col. 2 lines 58-67 and col. 3 lines 22-35);
melting the geological material with the electromagnetic radiation (col. 3 lines 22-35); and sealing at least a portion of the wellbore with the melted geological material (col. 3 lines 22-35).
With respect to depending claim 5, Richey discloses wherein sealing the at least a portion of the wellbore with the melted geological material includes plugging a cross-section of the wellbore with the melted geological material (col. 3 lines 22-35). With respect to depending claim 8, which is dependent upon claim 5, Richey discloses wherein melting the geological material includes melting at least a portion of the supplied geological material, and wherein plugging the cross-section of the wellbore includes plugging the cross-section of the wellbore with the melted portion of the supplied geological material (col. 3 lines 22-35).
With respect to independent claim 13, Richey discloses a system for sealing a wellbore, comprising: a radiation generator configured to generate electromagnetic radiation (col. 2 lines 58-67 and col. 3 lines 22-35);
a radiation transmitter coupled to the radiation generator for transmitting the electromagnetic radiation (col. 2 lines 58-67 and col. 3 lines 22-35); and a radiation emitting device configured to emit the electromagnetic radiation in a radial direction towards geological material in a wellbore to melt the geological material (col. 2 lines 58-67 and col. 3 lines 22-35). With respect to depending claim 14, Richey discloses wherein a downhole tool includes the radiation emitting device (col. 2 lines 58-67 and col. 3 lines 22-35). With respect to depending claim 15, Richey discloses wherein the downhole tool includes the radiation generator and the radiation transmitter, and wherein the system further includes a power supply, the power supply electrically coupled to the downhole tool and configured to power the radiation generator (col. 2 lines 58-67 and col. 3 lines 22-35). With respect to depending claim 16, Richey discloses wherein the radiation generator is disposed at a surface of the wellbore (col. 2 lines 58-67 and col. 3 lines 22-35 and Fig. 1). With respect to depending claim 17, Richey discloses wherein the radiation emitting device emits the electromagnetic radiation in the axial direction (col. 2 lines 58-67 and col. 3 lines 22-35 and Fig. 1).
With respect to depending claim 18, Richey discloses wherein a direction in which the radiation emitting device emits the electromagnetic radiation is movable (col. 2 lines 58-67 and col. 3 lines 22-35 and Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richey (US 2,757,738- cited above).
With respect to depending claim 19, Richey discloses forming a plug in a bore by melting a geological material (col. 2 lines 58-67 and col. 3 lines 22-35 and Fig. 1). However, Richey fails to expressly disclose wherein the geological material is supplied via a supply system. The Office considers it well known in the art of forming downhole plugs that the plugging material may be supplied via a supply system, such as that instantly claimed. With respect to depending claim 20, Richey discloses wherein the radiation generator is configured to generate electromagnetic radiation at a plurality of frequencies (col. 2 lines 58-67 and col. 3 lines 22-35). Inasmuch as Richey discloses generating electromagnetic radiation at a plurality of frequencies, the act of the frequencies being simultaneously or sequentially amounts to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of possible and predictable solutions, as it has been taught "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person having ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR at 1397
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2015/0152708) in view of Richey (US 2,757,738- cited above).
With respect to independent claim 1, Smith discloses a method for sealing a wellbore, comprising:
positioning a tool including a laser melting device in a wellbore at a desired depth (Abstract, [0003], and [0009]);
activating a laser melting device, wherein activating the device includes activating and rotating in a radial direction towards geological material disposed in the wellbore (Abstract, [0003], and [0009]);
melting the geological material with the activated laser (Abstract, [0003], and [0009]); and sealing at least a portion of the wellbore with the melted geological material (Abstract, [0003], and [0009]).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses activating a device to melt geological material to seal at least a portion of the wellbore (Abstract, [0003], and [0009]). However, Smith fails to expressly disclose wherein the device is a radiation emitting device, as instantly claimed. Richey teaches activating a device to melt geological material to seal at least a portion of the wellbore, emitting the electromagnetic radiation includes emitting at one or more frequencies and the electromagnetic radiation is emitted in a radial direction towards geological material disposed in the wellbore (col. 2 lines 58-67 and col. 3 lines 22-35). Replacing the geological material melting device disclosed by Smith with the geological material melting device taught by Richey is but a simple substitution of one known equivalent geological material melting device for another, performing the same function for the same purpose. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make this simple substitution as it has been held “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)).
With respect to depending claim 2, Smith discloses wherein sealing the at least a portion of the wellbore with the melted geological material includes sealing a wall of the wellbore (Abstract, [0003], [0009], and claim 1). With respect to depending claim 3, which is dependent upon claim 2, Smith discloses wherein the geological material includes the wall of the wellbore (Abstract, [0003], [0009], and claim 1).
With respect to depending claim 4, which is dependent upon claim 2, Smith discloses further comprising supplying the geological material to the wellbore, wherein melting the geological material includes melting at least a portion of the supplied geological material, and wherein sealing the wall of the wellbore includes sealing the wall of the wellbore with the melted portion of the geological material (Abstract, [0003], [0009], and claim 1).
With respect to depending claim 5, Smith discloses wherein sealing the at least a portion of the wellbore with the melted geological material includes plugging a cross-section of the wellbore with the melted geological material (Abstract, [0003], [0009], and Fig. 2).
With respect to depending claim 6, which is dependent upon claim 5, Smith discloses wherein the geological material includes a wall of the wellbore (Abstract, [0003], [0009], and claim 1).
With respect to depending claim 7, which is dependent upon claim 6, Smith discloses further comprising disposing a packer in the wellbore below the desired depth, and wherein plugging the cross-section of the wellbore with the melted geological material includes pooling the melted geological material on top of the packer (Abstract, [0003], [0008], [0009], and Fig. 2).
With respect to depending claim 8, which is dependent upon claim 5, Smith discloses further comprising supplying the geological material to the wellbore, wherein melting the geological material includes melting at least a portion of the supplied geological material, and wherein plugging the cross-section of the wellbore includes plugging the cross-section of the wellbore with the melted portion of the supplied geological material (Abstract, [0003], [0009], and Fig. 2).
With respect to depending claim 9, which is dependent upon claim 8, Smith discloses further comprising disposing a packer in the wellbore below the desired depth, and wherein plugging the cross-section of the wellbore with the melted portion of the supplied geological material includes pooling the melted portion of the supplied geological material on top of the packer (Abstract, [0003], [0008], [0009], and Fig. 2).
With respect to depending claim 10, which is dependent upon claim 9, Smith discloses wherein the packer is disposed in a casing disposed in the wellbore (Abstract, [0003], [0008], [0009], and Fig. 2).
With respect to depending claim 11, the combination of Smith and Rickey teaches conducting radio-frequency electromagnetic energy with a focus on minimizing radiation loss and absorbing the radiated electromagnetic energy into the formation, wherein the medium through which the radiated energy passes affects the distance which the radiated energy may travel (col. 2 lines 58-67 and col. 4 lines 24-28 and 54-65). Although silent to wherein a medium having a specific penetrating depth is injected, the Office considers it well known in the art of radiation and electromagnetic energy to employ various mediums to alter or improve absorption rates.
With respect to depending claim 12, the combination of Smith and Rickey teaches further comprising determining the one or more frequencies of the electromagnetic radiation, wherein the one or more frequencies are determined based on one or more of petrophysical, geological, and geophysical information about the wellbore (col. 2 lines 58-67 and col. 4 lines 24-28).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watson et al. (US 2018/0209243) teaches a method of sealing a wellbore comprising supplying a geological material (e.g. aluminum alloys) and melting said geological material via electromagnetic radiation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVI T. SKAIST whose telephone number is (571)272-9348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/AVI T SKAIST/Examiner, Art Unit 3674
/WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674