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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 14-19) and Species A in the reply filed on 5/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be an undue search burden because of the similarities in the claims and the nature of the application.. This is not found persuasive for the reasons stated on pages 2-3 of Restriction Requirement mailed out on 3/25/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
All other claims are withdrawn.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claims 17-18 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 17 recites “The method of claim 14, coupling the retention cap to the fuse head holder of the detonator via one or more coupling features of the fuse head holder and one or more coupling features of the retention cap.” It is unclear whether claim 17 is intended to further limit the coupling step recited in claim 14 or recite an additional method step. Appropriate correction would appear to be required, for example, by reciting “wherein coupling the retention cap to the fuse head holder of the detonator comprises coupling the retention cap to the fuse head holder via one or more coupling features of the fuse head holder and one or more coupling features of the retention cap,” or other similar language.
Any unspecified claim is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. In light of the above, the claims will be further treated on the merits as best understood only.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Birkin et al. (US 2022/0099416 A1; hereinafter “Birkin”) in view of Lynch et al. (US 2008/0245253 A1; hereinafter “Lynch”).
Regarding claim 14, Birkin discloses a method for assembling a detonator, the method comprising:
inserting a fuse head into a holder contact of the detonator via an opening in a fuse head holder of the detonator (Birkin teaches a method of assembling a detonator including inserting detonator components, including an electronic module having an electronic circuit, into a tubular casing through an open end of the casing; see Abstract; paragraphs [0004]-[0011], [0022]-[0034]; Figs. 1-6);
coupling a retention cap to the fuse head holder of the detonator with the fuse head inserted into the holder contact (Birkin teaches positioning and securing the electronic module within the detonator casing by mechanical retention/deformation so that the module is retained in a predetermined position; see paragraphs [0011]-[0012], [0031]-[0036]; Fig. 6); and
disposing an outer hull over the retention cap and at least a portion of the fuse head holder (Birkin teaches a tubular metallic casing/housing for receiving and enclosing detonator components; see paragraphs [0022]-[0024], [0028]-[0034]; Figs. 1, 4-6).
Birkin does not specifically teach the inserted component is a fuse head inserted into a holder contact via an opening in a fuse head holder, or coupling a retention cap to the fuse head holder with the fuse head inserted into the holder contact.
However, Lynch teaches an initiator assembly including an initiation fixture and fuse/fixture subassembly, wherein a fuse is received in a sleeve/opening of an initiation fixture, the fixture/fuse subassembly is secured to a triggering device, and a fuse-holder cap is mounted to the output end of the barrel and includes an aperture through which the fuse/sleeve passes, with the cap engaging and retaining the fixture in position (Lynch, Abstract; paragraphs [0006]-[0010], [0026]-[0033]; Figs. 1-2; claims 4 and 7). Lynch further teaches that the fuse-holder cap retains and positions the initiation fixture/fuse subassembly and that pre-assembly avoids field assembly problems and improves reliability (Lynch, paragraphs [0007]-[0009], [0031]-[0033]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of assembling a detonator of Birkin to include the cap/holder retention arrangement taught by Lynch, including inserting an ignition/fuse component through an opening in a holder/fixture and coupling a retention/fuse-holder cap to retain the ignition/fuse component in position, because Lynch teaches that such cap/holder arrangements properly position and retain fuse/initiator components and avoid field assembly/reliability problems. The modification would have amounted to the use of a known technique to improve a similar detonator/initiator assembly in the same way, and would have yielded predictable results, namely retaining the ignition/fuse component in a desired position within the detonator assembly. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 15, Birkin further teaches securing the outer hull/tubular casing to the detonator components by deforming the casing into engagement with the module and crimping the casing to complete the assembly process (Birkin, paragraphs [0011]-[0012], [0033]-[0034]; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, Birkin further teaches that securing the casing includes crimping the casing, including forming a crimp formation and crimping the casing to complete the assembly process (Birkin, paragraphs [0012], [0033]-[0034]; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17, Lynch further teaches coupling the retention/fuse-holder cap to the holder/fixture via coupling features, including a fuse-holder cap mounted on the output end of a barrel, threaded engagement between the cap and the barrel, an aperture through which the fuse/sleeve passes, and bearing/retention surfaces that engage and retain the fixture in position (Lynch, paragraphs [0031]-[0033]; Fig. 2; claims 4 and 7).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birkin in view of Lynch as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Preiss et al. (US 9,581,422 B2; hereinafter “Preiss”).
Regarding claim 18, Lynch teaches retaining/positioning the fixture/fuse subassembly by engagement between corresponding coupling/retention features of the cap, barrel, and fixture. However, Lynch does not expressly teach wherein the coupling features form a snap-fit.
Preiss teaches modular perforating gun components that may be snapped, clicked, plugged, frictionally fit, or snap-fit together rather than screwed or twisted together (Preiss, paragraphs (10)-(11), (23)-(24), (34); par. 10 is the 2nd paragraph in the DETAILED DESCRIPTION section).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the coupling features of Birkin as modified by Lynch in the form of a snap-fit, as taught by Preiss, because snap-fit coupling was a known mechanical fastening technique for modular detonator/perforating gun assemblies and would have predictably allowed quick and reliable coupling of the retention cap and fuse head holder without threaded assembly. The substitution of one known coupling technique for another known coupling technique would have been obvious where the substituted technique performs the same retaining function and yields the predictable result of securing the components together. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 19, Preiss further teaches disposing the detonator within a wellbore tool/perforating gun assembly, wherein the detonator assembly is positioned within a detonator positioning assembly of a perforating gun assembly for wellbore operations (Preiss, Abstract; paragraphs (1)-(5), (10), (13), (21)-(34); Figs. 2-6).
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL D DAVID whose telephone number is (571)270-3737 and whose email address is michael.david@uspto.gov*. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
*Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Applicant is welcome to file an electronic communication authorization (sb439) form at any time if he/she would like to communicate via e-mail:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdfWithout a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL D DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights