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 Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informality: On line 1 of claim 14, “wherein” should follow the comma. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 4/10/26 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 1/12/26. However, Applicant’s amendments fail to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 at least one centimeter.” The phrase “at least one centimeter” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The term "at least" 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; “at least” can include 2 centimeters or 200 million kilometers. For purposes of examination, the term “at least one centimeter” will be considered as if written as “one centimeter.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2015/0152708) in view of Varma (US 2009/0173488).
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 within 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 wall with the melted geological material (Abstract, [0003], and [0009]).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses activating a heating 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 heating device is a radiation emitting device, as instantly claimed. Varma teaches a heating device for delivering heat through a wellbore, wherein the heating device is a radiation emitting device which emits electromagnetic radiation at one or more frequencies (Abstract, [0035], [0036], [0092], and Figs. 2 and 9). Replacing the downhole heating device disclosed by Smith with the downhole heating device taught by Varma is but a simple substitution of one known equivalent downhole heating 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 wall prevents ingress and egress of fluids through the wellbore wall (Abstract, [0003], [0009], and claim 1). With respect to depending claim 3, Smith discloses wherein the geological material comprises the wall of the wellbore (Abstract, [0003], [0009], and claim 1).
With respect to depending claim 4, 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 comprises 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 comprises plugging a cross-section of the wellbore with the melted geological material (Abstract, [0003], [0009], and Fig. 2).
With respect to depending claim 6, the combination of Smith and Varma discloses wherein the radiation emitting device is coupled to a radiation generating device, wherein the radiation generating device may be a klystron or magnetron (Abstract, [0035], [0036], and [0092]). With regard to the remaining devices of the Markush group, the Office considers these as obvious variants to those disclosed by the reference, and, therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively include such devices as the radiation generating device.
With respect to depending claim 7, which is dependent upon claim 5, 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 comprises 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 comprises 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 comprises 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 Varma teaches generating heat by transmitting and penetrating radiation through a well and into a formation (Abstract, [0035], [0036], and [0092]). 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 Varma teaches further comprising determining the one or more frequencies of the electromagnetic radiation, wherein the one or more frequencies may be 2.45 GHz or 2.856 GHz, wherein the one or more frequencies are determined based on one or more of petrophysical, geological, and geophysical information about the wellbore (Abstract, [0035], [0036], and [0092]). Although silent to wherein the frequencies “range from about 300 MHz to about 300 GHz,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a frequency as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) Furthermore, Varma recites wherein the radiation may be microwaves; microwaves are a type of electromagnetic radiation whose frequencies range from 300 MHz to 300 GHz. With respect to independent claim 13, Smith discloses a system for sealing a wellbore, comprising: a laser melting device, wherein activating the device melts geological material disposed within the wellbore, thereby sealing and preventing ingress and egress of fluids through the wellbore wall (Abstract, [0003], and [0009]).
Regarding claim 13, Smith discloses activating a heating 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 heating device is a radiation emitting device, as instantly claimed. Varma teaches a heating device for delivering heat through a wellbore, wherein the heating device is a radiation emitting device which emits electromagnetic radiation at one or more frequencies (Abstract, [0035], [0036], [0092], and Figs. 2 and 9). Replacing the downhole heating device disclosed by Smith with the downhole heating device taught by Varma is but a simple substitution of one known equivalent downhole heating 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)).
Further regarding claim 13, the combination of Smith and Varma teaches wherein the radiation device comprises:
a radiation generator configured to generate electromagnetic radiation (Abstract, [0035], [0036], [0092], and Figs. 2 and 9);
a radiation transmitter coupled to the radiation generator for transmitting the electromagnetic radiation (Abstract, [0035], [0036], [0092], and Figs. 2 and 9); and
a radiation emitting device configured to emit the electromagnetic radiation in a radial direction (Abstract, [0035], [0036], [0092], and Figs. 2 and 9).
With respect to depending claim 14, the combination of Smith and Varma teaches wherein the radiation transmitter comprises a waveguide ([0040]).
With respect to depending claim 15, the combination of Smith and Varma teaches wherein the downhole tool comprises the radiation emitting device, 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 (Abstract, [0035], [0036], [0040], [0055], [0092], and Figs. 2 and 9). With respect to depending claim 16, the combination of Smith and Varma teaches wherein the radiation generator is disposed at a surface of the wellbore, wherein the radiation generating device may be a klystron or magnetron (Abstract, [0035], [0036], [0092], and Figs. 2 and 9).With regard to the remaining devices of the Markush group, the Office considers these as obvious variants to those disclosed by the reference, and, therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively include such devices as the radiation generating device. With respect to depending claim 17, the combination of Smith and Varma teaches wherein the radiation emitting device emits the electromagnetic radiation in the axial direction (Abstract, [0035], [0036], [0040], [0055], [0092], and Figs. 2 and 9).
With respect to depending claim 18, the combination of Smith and Varma teaches wherein a direction in which the radiation emitting device emits the electromagnetic radiation is movable within the wellbore (Abstract, [0035], [0036], [0092], and Figs. 2 and 9).
With respect to depending claim 20, the combination of Smith and Varma teaches wherein the radiation generator is configured to generate electromagnetic radiation at a plurality of frequencies simultaneously or sequentially, wherein the radiation generation is configured to generate frequencies at 2.45 GHz or 2.856 GHz (Abstract, [0030], [0035], [0036], and [0092]). Although silent to wherein the frequencies “range from about 300 MHz to about 300 GHz,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for a frequency as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) Furthermore, Varma recites wherein the radiation may be microwaves; microwaves are a type of electromagnetic radiation whose frequencies range from 300 MHz to 300 GHz.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2015/0152708- cited above) in view of Varma (US 2009/0173488- cited above), and further in view of Scartezina (US 2003/0202418).
With respect to depending claim 19, Smith discloses delivering a geological material downhole, melting the geological material via a heating device by emitting heat in a direction (Abstract, [0003], and [0009]), and the combination of Smith and Varma teaches wherein the heating device may be an emitting device to emit electromagnetic radiation in the same direction (Abstract, [0035], [0036], and [0092]). However, Smith fails to expressly disclose wherein the geological material delivery is supplied via a supply system. Scartezina teaches a supply system for delivering geological material, wherein the supply system includes a geological material supply and a supply tube (Abstract). Replacing the geological material delivery system disclosed by Smith with the geological material supply system taught by Scartezina is but a simple substitution of one known equivalent system for delivering geological material for another, performing the same function for the same purpose. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the 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)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Ritchey as well as claim 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Smith have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Smith discloses “a laser device or devices to penetrate into a formation to completely seal a wellbore in order to abandon a well” but not “a method or system for sealing a wellbore wall to prevent ingress and egress through a wellbore wall.” The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. Smith discloses melting geological material to seal a wellbore well and thereby prevent ingress and egress through the wellbore wall (see above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lewis (US 2017/0356271) teaches a radiation device for setting geological materials.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
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
Prosecution Insights