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 .
Status of the Claims
The Claims filed 11/26/25 has been entered. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryden (US 2011/0088802- cited previously), as evidenced by Ageev et al. (US 2014/0027110- cited previously).
With respect to independent claim 1, Bryden discloses an acoustic stimulation tool comprising:
a pair of electrodes ([0012], [0013], [0017], [0021], [0026], [0042], and [0046]-[0058], and Figs. 2 and 3);
a feed mechanism arranged to feed an electrically conductive mechanism between the electrodes ([0012], [0013], [0018], [0025], and [0048]-[0052]); and 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).
Regarding claim 1, Bryden fails to expressly disclose wherein the acoustic stimulation tool is a downhole acoustic stimulation tool, i.e., it is configured for use downhole to a surrounding formation. However, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the acoustic stimulation tool, used for reducing contaminants in water, can be configured for use downhole, i.e., the acoustic stimulation tool disclosed by Bryden is fully capable of being employed downhole. Evidentiary support can be found in Ageev (Abstract).
Further regarding claim 1, Bryden discloses an electrically conductive mechanism ([0012], [0013], [0018], [0025], and [0048]-[0052]). However, Bryden fails to expressly disclose wherein “electrically conductive” may be “metallic,” as instantly claimed. Inasmuch as all metals are electrically conductive, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would consider it obvious to consider metal as the “electrically conductive” material. Furthermore, the Office considers it well known and standard in the art to employ metal materials as electrically conductive materials.
With respect to depending claim 2, Bryden discloses 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, Bryden discloses 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, Bryden discloses 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)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/262/ have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the feed mechanism [disclosed by Bryden] does not feed a conductor between the electrodes.” The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. Bryden discloses a feed mechanism, electrical conductor, and a pair of electrodes with an gap geometry, wherein the feed mechanism may move longitudinally and/or rotate the electrodes. Regardless of the initial placement of the conductor, the “feed mechanism [is] arranged to feed a… conductor between the electrodes,” as claimed (emphasis added). That is to say, the Applicant appears to be arguing a feature which is not claimed; the claims merely recite wherein the feed mechanism is arranged in such a way to feed a conductor between electrodes, not that the conductor is limited to being between the electrodes.
Applicant argues that the “water-treatment device” disclosed by Bryden cannot be relied upon for teaching the “downhole acoustic stimulation tool,” as instantly claimed, since “Bryden is not designed to be lowered down a borehole.” Similarly, the Applicant argues that “Bryden does not appear to be analogous art.” The Examiner points out that the recitations of “downhole” and “acoustic” have not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). That is to say, each of the Applicant’s arguments regarding Bryden being silent regarding a “downhole acoustic stimulation” tool are not found persuasive inasmuch as they depend upon the pre-amble and, as explained above, are not given patentable weight. Furthermore, evidentiary support has been provided to demonstrate that it is well known for acoustic stimulation tools to be employed downhole (see above).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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