DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/1/2026 are accepted by the examiner.
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 30 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the first mode" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 19,20,22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Cohn 20250354489 et al.
Referring to claim 19, Cohn discloses an apparatus comprising: an enclosure (40) configured to receive an electromagnetic wave from a mm wave emitter (20) via a first waveguide (30) positioned between the mm wave emitter and the enclosure, the enclosure comprising a plurality of components ( including coupling interface 75 and port 86) configured to manage transmission of the electromagnetic wave to a second waveguide (30 between element 40 and borehole) positioned relative to a borehole of a well to be formed via the electromagnetic wave transmitted through the second waveguide, the plurality of components comprising at least one of: a first port at which a gas is received (at 86,see paragraph 0020) ; at least one mirror configured to adjust a direction or a diameter of the electromagnetic wave provided to the second waveguide; at least one arc detector configured to detect an arc event responsive to transmitting the electromagnetic wave to the second waveguide; a load cell provided on an exterior surface of the enclosure; and a barrier window (see paragraph 0022 window at distal end of transmission line).
Referring to claim 20, Cohn discloses a diagnostic sampling device (70) coupled to the enclosure, the diagnostic sampling device configured to measure at least one of a temperature (see paragraph 0037), a standoff, mode purity, plasma formation, and a geometry of the borehole.
Referring to claim 22, Cohn discloses a plasma trap configured to direct plasma away from the mm wave emitter, the plasma trap comprising an electromagnet; a permanent magnet; a cavity of sufficient size to allow the electromagnetic wave to diverge; or gas flow port (80) arranged to direct plasma away from the mm wave emitter when gas is flowing through the gas flow port (see paragraph 0020).
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.
Claim(s) 19 , 23, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woskov 20250067171 in view of Cohn et al. 20250354489.
Referring to claim 19, Woskov discloses an enclosure (180) configured to receive an electromagnetic wave from a mm wave emitter (120) via a first waveguide (130) positioned between the mm wave emitter and the enclosure, the enclosure (50) comprising a plurality of components configured to manage transmission of the electromagnetic wave to a second waveguide positioned relative to a borehole of a well to be formed via the electromagnetic wave transmitted through the second waveguide,; and a barrier window (see paragraph 0046 dielectric window). Woskov does not disclose the plurality of components comprising at least one of: a first port at which a gas is received ; at least one mirror configured to adjust a direction or a diameter of the electromagnetic wave provided to the second waveguide; at least one arc detector configured to detect an arc event responsive to transmitting the electromagnetic wave to the second waveguide; a load cell provided on an exterior surface of the enclosure. Woskov does disclose gas used to aid in removal or material (see paragraph 0052). Cohn teaches an isolation system (40) having a first port (at 86) which a gas is received from a gas source 82 to further prevent backflow of material (see paragraph 0020). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device disclosed by Woskov to have a first port at which a gas is received in view of the teachings of Cohn with a reasonable expectation of success in order to further prevent backflow of material into millimeter wave source.
Referring to claim 23, Woskov, as modified, discloses the first port ( as taught by Cohn) is configured to receive the gas from a gas source and to direct the gas into the borehole as a purge gas (Woskov, paragraph 0052), wherein the purge gas is configured follow a flow passage into the borehole, the purge gas configured to cool a downhole end of the flow passage, cool the downhole end of the flow passage, and carry cuttings up an annulus defined by the flow passage and the borehole (see paragraph 0052).
Referring to claim 30, Woskov discloses the enclosure further comprises: a cooled wire grid (183) configured to direct electromagnetic radiation in the first mode reflected from the borehole away from the mm wave emitter (see paragraph 0041).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn et al. 20250354489 in view Reid 20120241009.
Referring to claim 24, Cohn does not disclose the enclosure further comprises a second port coupled to a pressure relief valve. Reid teaches it is known in the art to couple a pressure relief valve to and enclosure to prevent overpressure (see paragraph 0005). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system disclosed by Cohn to have the enclosure have a second port coupled to a pressure relief valve in view of the teachings of Reid with a reasonable expectation of success in order to protect against overpressure.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn et al. 20250354489 in view of Hemmati et al. 20070229993 and Alvarez 20200325771 .
Referring to claim 25, Cohn discloses (see fig. 1) receiving an electromagnetic wave by an enclosure (40) from a first waveguide ( element 30 );directing the electromagnetic wave, by the enclosure, into a second waveguide ( 30) positioned relative to a borehole of a well to be formed via the electromagnetic wave transmitted through the second waveguide. Cohn teaches the enclosure is use to protect the millimeter wave source (20) from reflections from the wellbore (see paragraph 0024) Cohn does not discloses directing and adjusting a diameter of the electromagnetic wave, by a mirror within the enclosure and a focusing mirror within the enclosure respectively or absorbing scattered electromagnetic radiation reflected from the borehole. Hemmati teaches it is known to use mirrors to adjust diameters of waves and mirrors to focus waves to target the wave at the desired area (see paragraph 0033). Alvarez teaches using a coating can help to absorbed scattered reflected waves (see paragraph 0021). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Cohn to direct and adjust a diameter of the electromagnetic wave, by a mirror within the enclosure and a focusing mirror within the enclosure respectively and to have a coating that absorbs scattered electromagnetic radiation reflected from the borehole in view of the teaching of Alverez with a reasonable expectation of success as mirrors are a known tool to adjust diameter and redirect the waves to the desired area and the coating will help to protect the millimeter wave source.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn et al. 20250354489 in view of Hemmati et al. 20070229993 and Alvarez 20200325771, as applied to claim 25 and further in view of Tseliakhovich 20140354064 .
Referring to claim 26, Cohn discloses directing fluid through the enclosure ( see paragraph 0020, gas can be injected in enclosure can carry excess waves from the enclosure). Cohn does not disclose the flow passage is a conduit of material transparent to the electromagnetic wave or carrying excess power from the enclosure by the fluid. Tseliakhovich teaches using Teflon tubing filled with water or gas to remove excess heat from an enclosure (see paragraph 0033). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the method disclosed by Cohn, as modified by Hemmati and Alvarez to have a conduit made of material transparent to the electromagnetic wave and carry excess power from the enclosure by the gas, in view of the teachings of Tseliakhovich with a reasonable expectation of success in order to remove excess heat from the enclosure.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn et al. 20250354489 in view of Hemmati et al. 20070229993 and Alvarez 20200325771 as applied to claim 25 and further in view of Haimson 3319109 .
Referring to claim 27, Cohn, as modified, does not disclose the first waveguide or the second waveguide include a cooling mechanism on an exterior surface thereof, the method further comprising: removing heat generated by the electromagnetic wave. Haimson teaches it is known to attach one or more fluid conduits arranged adjacent to the exterior surface of a waveguides to cool a waveguides and prevent overheating (see col. 4, lines 30-35). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the method disclosed by Cohn, as modified by Hemmati and Alvarez, to have the first waveguide or the second waveguide include a cooling mechanism on an exterior surface thereof, the method further comprising: removing heat generated by the electromagnetic wave in view of the teachings of Haimson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide cooling the waveguide and prevent overheating.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn et al. 20250354489 in view of Hemmati et al. 20070229993 and Alvarez 20200325771 as applied to claim 25 and further in view of Woskov 20250067171.
Referring to claim 28, Cohn does not disclose a frequency sensor, wherein the frequency sensor is coupled to a computing device, the method further comprising: determining if a sampled frequency of the electromagnetic wave is within a predetermined range of values stored in a memory of the computing device. Woskov teaches a frequency sensor, wherein the frequency sensor ( 184) is coupled to a computing device (160), the method further comprising: determining if a sampled frequency of the electromagnetic wave is within a predetermined range of values stored in a memory of the computing device (see paragraph 0060). Cohn further discloses frequency of the wave varies depending upon the type of material or operation (see paragraph 0026). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the method disclosed by Cohn to have a frequency sensor, wherein the frequency sensor is coupled to a computing device, the method further comprising: determining if a sampled frequency of the electromagnetic wave is within a predetermined range of values stored in a memory of the computing device in view of the teachings of Woskov in order to ensure method of using the optimum frequency for the material and operation.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn et al. 20250354489 in view of Woskov 20250067171 and Mallat 20130127675 .
Referring to claim 28, Cohn does not disclose a frequency sensor configured to sample the electromagnetic wave; or at least one power measurement sensor configured to measure a power of the electromagnetic wave. Cohn does discloses the frequency of the wave varies depending upon the type of material or operation (see paragraph 0026. Woskov teaches a frequency sensor (186). Mallat teaches that power measurement sensor to measure power of electromagnetic wave are well known in the art (see paragraph 0002). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed by Cohn to include a frequency sensor configured to sample the electromagnetic wave and at least one power measurement sensor configured to measure a power of the electromagnetic wave in view of the teachings of Woskov and Mallat, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure the using the appropriate frequency is being used for the material and operation and the appropriate power in being used for the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-18 are allowed.
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Referring to claim 1, the closest prior art to Cohn et al. 20250354489 does not teach or suggest a system having a load cell provided on an exterior surface of the enclosure in combination with the other limitations of the claim nor would it be obvious to modify Cohn to include this limitation.
Referring to claim 21, the closest prior art to Cohn does not teach or suggest the at least one power measurement sensor comprises a first sensor configured to measure an amount of forward power of the electromagnetic wave passing through the enclosure toward the second waveguide and a second sensor configured to measure an amount of reverse power passing through the enclosure toward the mm wave emitter in combination with the other limitations of the claim nor would it be obvious to modify Cohn to include this limitation.
Conclusion
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 GIOVANNA WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7027. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am- 5 pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/Giovanna Wright/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights