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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/10/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6/10/26 has been entered. Claims 1-7 are pending in the application. Claim 7 is new.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality:
At the end of line 5, the word “and” should be added.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ageev et al. (US 2014/0027110- cited previously) in view of Bryden (US 2011/0088802- cited previously).
With respect to independent claim 1, Ageev discloses a downhole acoustic stimulation tool (Abstract, [0040], [0120], and Fig. 1) comprising: a pair of electrodes ([0040], [0090], [0130], and Fig. 2; first electrode 38 and second electrode 40);
a feed mechanism arranged to feed a metallic conductor between the pair of electrodes, wherein the metallic conductor is fed between the pair of electrodes without moving the electrodes closer together ([0040], [0091], [0122], [0131], and Figs. 2 and 3; capacitor 46 and storage spool 66); and
a capacitor unit ([0040], [0135] and Fig. 2; capacitor unit 34).
Regarding claim 1, Ageev discloses an acoustic stimulation tool comprising electrodes, metallic conductor, and a capacitor unit to provide electricity (Abstract, [0040], [0046], and [0135]). However, Ageev fails to expressly disclose wherein the capacitor unit comprises a plurality of capacitor units connected in parallel, each comprising at least one capacitor, as instantly claimed. Bryden teaches a plurality of capacitor units connected in parallel, each comprising at least one capacitor ([0012], [0013], [0017], [0021], [0026], [0042], and [0046]-[0058], and Figs. 2 and 3). Replacing the capacitor unit disclosed by Ageev with the capacitor units taught by Bryden is but a simple substitution of one known equivalent capacitor unit for another, performing the same function for the same purpose, i.e., providing electricity to electrodes for acoustic stimulation. 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, the combination of Ageev and Bryden teaches a voltage control unit configured to discharge the capacitor units asynchronously to apply a series of pulse voltages across the electrodes ([0012], [0013], [0017], [0021], [0026], [0042], and [0046]-[0058], and Figs. 2 and 3).
With respect to depending claim 3, which depends upon claim 2, the combination of Ageev and Bryden teaches voltage pulses for charging capacitor units ([0012], [0013], [0017], [0021], [0026], [0042], and [0046]-[0058], and Figs. 2 and 3). Although silent to wherein the “duration between successive pulse voltages is less than a charging time of each capacitor unit,” 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 the multiple pulse duration 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)
With respect to depending claims 4-6, the combination of Ageev and Bryden teaches a capacitor bank, wherein “the capacitor bank includes ten hybrid capacitors arranged into five in-series pairs with the five pairs connected in parallel ([0058] and Fig. 2). Although silent to the exact arrangments as instantly claimed, nevertheless a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would consider it obvious to arrange and rearrange the same parts in different but known configurations. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
With respect to depending claim 7, Ageev discloses wherein the metallic conductor introduced by the feed mechanism forms a conductive path for plasma generation ([0101] and [0132]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/10/26 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thomas et al. (US 6,427,774) teaches a downhole acoustic stimulation tool comprising a pair of electrodes, a feed mechanism arranged to feed a conductor between the pair of electrodes, and a capacitor to provide electricity, wherein the conductor introduced by the feed mechanism forms a conductive path for plasma generation.
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