DETAILED ACTION
Claims 85-97 and 99 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
The most recent 35 U.S.C § 112 rejection has been withdrawn in light of the cancellation of claims 100-101.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments made to claims 85 and 99 still are broad in nature and still read on the prior art references previously introduced (see detailed rejection herein). If there is a critical feature in the claims that have a certain degree of importance, it is advised to include that language in the claim(s) in keeping with the instant specification for purposes of overcoming the most recent prior art rejection. Furthermore, the claim amendments raise new 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112(b) issues which need attention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 85-87, 89-97 and 99 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,297,709 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 85 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1 & 7 of U.S. Patent Number 12,297,709 B2.
Claim 86 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent Number 12,297,709 B2.
Claim 87 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent Number 12,297,709 B2.
Claim 89 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent Number 12,297,709 B2.
Claim 90 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of U.S. Patent Number 12,297,709 B2.
Claim 91 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of U.S. Patent Number 12,297,709 B2.
Claim 92 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of U.S. Patent Number 12,297,709 B2.
Claim 93 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of U.S. Patent Number 12,297,709 B2.
Claim 94 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent Number 12,297,709 B2.
Claim 95 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of U.S. Patent Number 12,297,709 B2.
Claim 96 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of U.S. Patent Number 12,297,709 B2.
Claim 97 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent Number 12,297,709 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 85-97 and 99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 85 (and, similarly claim 99) recites: “[...] wherein the control mechanism introduces at least one modifying agent into the at least one stream of combustion products thereby changing the content or structure of the at least one stream of combustion products.” Examiner notes the instant specification states the recites the following:
“[0003] [...] wherein upon ignition of the propellant source, the propellant source is operable to deflagrate, creating at least one stream of combustion products, the chamber directing the/each stream of combustion products through the/each outlet, towards the tubular to be manipulated, at least one parameter of the/each stream of combustion products being changeable by the control mechanism.”
“[0012] In some embodiments, the parameter which may be changed by the control mechanism may be the content or structure of the/each stream of combustion products.”
“[0113] Located within the chamber 26 is a propellant source 34 containing a propellant 36, potassium perchlorate, and particles of a modifying agent 38, in this case silver, embedded in the potassium perchlorate. The propellant source 34 is fed through a vertical housing chamber 40 to a horizontal housing chamber 42; the propellant source 34 defining an ignition surface 44.”
“[0117] Mounted to the lower housing surface 50, and shown in broken outline on Figure 1, is a control mechanism 52 which controls the movement of the lower outlet member petals 48 from the run-in or dump configuration shown in Figure 1 to the deployed configuration shown in Figure 3, thereby affecting the direction and intensity of a stream of combustion products flowing from the propellant source 34 towards the circumferential outlet 28.”
“[0118] In the deployed configuration, shown in Figure 3, the petals 48 extend beyond the diameter described by the upper outlet member 30 into proximity with the tubular 12. The circumferential outlet 28 is now significantly smaller and, as will be shown, a stream of combustion products flowing from the propellant source 34 through the chamber 26 and out of the outlets 28, will be directed towards the tubular 12.”
“[0120] Figure 5 shows that the ignition mechanism 46 has ignited the ignition surface 44 and a stream of highly pressurized combustion products 58 is released. The stream of combustion products 58 is driven away from the propellant 36 due to the pressure within the stream 58 and, in particular, the pressure generated at the ignition surface 44. Within the stream of combustion products 58 are the particles 38 of molten silver which have been released from the propellant source 34.”
With that being said, the invention teaches to initially have stored the propellant source (34) (which is the combination of “[...] a propellant 36, potassium perchlorate, and particles of a modifying agent 38, in this case silver, embedded in the potassium perchlorate”) within the chamber (26). Once the ignition process occurs, the propellant source (34) will be activated to combust, causing it to expel from the tool, whereby, the control mechanism (52) controls the content or structure of the combustion products by adjusting the petals (48) which dictate how much of the combustion product is released/restricted, and in what direction the combustion product is released in. However, instant specification fails to show support for the control mechanism (itself) to introduce at least one modifying agent into (within) the at least one stream of combustion products. Due to claim 85 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
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.
Claims 85-97 and 99 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 85 (and, similarly claim 99) recites: “[...] wherein the control mechanism introduces at least one modifying agent into the at least one stream of combustion products thereby changing the content or structure of the at least one stream of combustion products.” However, in the light 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection herein and the instant specification support, Examiner is confused as to what the metes and bounds of the limitation(s) is/are. For examination purposes, the Examiner will give its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the instant specification and will assume for the limitation to require for the control mechanism to change the content or structure of the at least one stream of combustion products which includes at least one modifying agent. Due to claim 85 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 85-90, 92-94, 96-97, and 99 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0335646 A1; herein “Huang”) in view of Doud et al. (US Publication Number 2015/0239795 A1; herein “Doud”).
In regard to claim 85, Huang discloses: A tool (10 — figures 11-12 and paragraphs [0049-0051]) for manipulating a target (16 — paragraphs [0026-0027, 0049] and figures 1 & 11-12), the tool comprising:
a housing (24) defining a chamber (i.e., combination of 54 and space/area comprising 28), the chamber having at least one outlet (i.e., “outlet” comprising open space starting between 50/55 and 32, leading into 32 which allows for fluid the flow in and out of the tool 10 — see figure 11 in light of the arrows 34 | furthermore, see paragraphs [0049-0051]);
a propellant source (28) comprising at least one propellant (i.e., thermate material) located within the chamber (figures 11-12 and paragraphs [0049-0051]), wherein once ignited the propellant burns to produce propellant gas (paragraphs [0032, 0049, 0051]);
an ignition mechanism for igniting the propellant source (“Penetrator head 30 includes a body 74 that forms one or more ports 32 for ejecting the gas produced by the ignited energy source 28” — paragraphs [0049] | furthermore, see paragraphs [0050-0051]); and
a control mechanism (i.e., “mechanism” comprising the combination of 32, 50, 55 allows for opening/closing, i.e., controlling, the propellant flow out of the apparatus, as shown in figures 11-12, in light of the mechanical movement of the valve member(s) and size of outlet 32 — paragraphs [0049-0050]);
wherein, upon ignition of the propellant source, the at least one propellant of the propellant source is operable to deflagrate, creating at least one stream of combustion products (“The one-way valves 55 are oriented to permit the product 34 produced from ignition of energy source 28 to pass from the carrier body 24 through the communication path to the ejection ports 32 and to seal the energy source 28 from hydraulic communication in the direction from the environment through the ejection port 32 and communication path to the thermate” — paragraphs [0049] | furthermore, see paragraphs [0050-0051]), the chamber directing the at least one stream of combustion products through the at least one outlet (as shown in light of dashed arrows 34 within figures 11-12), towards the target to be manipulated (paragraphs [0026-0027, 0049-0051] and figures 1 & 11-12), at least one parameter (i.e., propellant flow rate, energy, intensity, content and/or structure) of the at least one of combustion products being changeable by the control mechanism (Examiner notes that after ignition of the propellant source, the propellant flow rate/energy/intensity/content/structure will vary/change in light of the opening/closing of the outlet opening(s) via the valve control mechanism — paragraphs [0049-0052] and figures 11-12); and
wherein the at least one parameter which is changed by the control mechanism is the content or structure of the at least one of combustion products, wherein the control mechanism introduces the at least one stream of combustion products thereby changing the content or structure of the at least one stream of combustion products (Examiner notes that after ignition of the propellant source, the propellant flow rate/energy/intensity/content/structure will vary in light of the opening/closing of the outlet(s) 32. The intensity/energy of the combustion product jet will grow as it acts to overcome the wellbore environment and structural biasing elements while regulating flow through the outlets. Paragraph [0049] cites that the “[...] size of the ports 32 may dictate the performance of the penetrator head 30”, as the biasing elements of the control mechanism act to regulate the start of the jet which in conjunction with a selected port size controls the depth of penetration).
Huang discloses that the propellant may include a thermate composition, but does not expressly disclose the use of an explosive material (such as potassium perchlorate) in keeping with applicant’s special definition (see page 10, lines 31-33 of the instant application’s specification). Furthermore, Huang is silent in regard to: “[...] wherein the control mechanism introduces at least one modifying agent into the at least one stream of combustion products thereby changing the content or structure of the at least one stream of combustion products.” Examiner notes that the limitation is being interpreted under BRI in light of the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections herein.
Nonetheless, Doud teaches reactive material(s) that are useful for oil and gas completions and well stimulation processes and enhanced oil and gas recovery operations (see at least abstract). Doud teaches that it is known for wellbore disintegration tools to use a variety of chemical compositions including pairing thermite “(e.g., fluorinated or chlorinated polymers such as polytetrafluoroethylene, polyvinylidene difluoride, oxidizers such as bismuth oxide, potassium perchlorate, potassium or silver nitrate, iron oxide, tungsten or molybdenum oxide, and/or intermetallic thermite such as boron, aluminum, or silicon)” (see at least paragraph [0014]). Examiner notes that the thermite pair can include any combination of the list materials (i.e., one or more modifying agents) in addition to potassium perchlorate and thermite.
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made, to modify the teachings of Huang, to include for pairing a propellant thermite with potassium perchlorate and “at least one modifying agent”, as taught by Doud, in light of simple substitution of a known propellant thermite since Doud expressly teaches that the addition of the potassium perchlorate and other materials are known alternatives (further supported by MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B).
In regard to claim 86, Huang further discloses: wherein the control mechanism is operable to control the rate of burn of propellant or the volume of supply of propellant (Examiner notes that after ignition of the propellant source, the propellant flow rate/energy will vary in light of the opening/closing of the outlet(s) 32 — see figures 11-12; the intensity/energy of the combustion product jet will grow as it acts to overcome the wellbore environment and structural bias elements while regulating flow through the outlets; the bias will change the amount of combustion product that can pass through the tool because the bias will apply a specific force that must be overcome).
In regard to claim 87, Huang further discloses: wherein the control mechanism is operable to control the constitution of the propellant source (Examiner notes that after ignition of the propellant source, the propellant flow rate/energy will vary in light of the opening/closing of the outlet(s) 32 — see figures 11-12 | furthermore, the intensity/energy of the combustion product jet will grow as it acts to overcome the wellbore environment and structural bias elements while regulating flow through the outlets).
In regard to claim 88, Huang further discloses: wherein the control mechanism is operable to introduce oxygen to enhance the burning of the propellant or the target to be manipulated (paragraphs [0032, 0036, 0048]).
In regard to claim 89, Huang further discloses: wherein the at least one outlet defines an opening (i.e., “outlet” comprising open space starting between 50/55 and 32, leading into 32 which allows for fluid the flow in and out of the tool 10 — figure 11 in light of the arrows 34 and paragraphs [0049-0052]), the control mechanism being operable to vary the outlet opening (the movement of the spring valve control mechanism changes the relative size of the “outlet opening”).
In regard to claim 90, Huang further discloses: wherein the tool is operable to move the at least one outlet to an outlet focused position in which the outlet channels the at least one stream of combustion products towards a particular location outwith the tool (the intensity/energy of the propellant flow rate with respect to the opening of the outlet will control the depth of penetration, as when the outlet gradually opens, the intensity/energy will increase until it reaches its maximum capacity when the outlet opening is fully open; the valve structures are shifted from a “bias closed” position prior to ignition to an “open” position which allows the jet to be directed to a specific “outlet focused” surrounding wellbore structure).
In regard to claim 92, Huang further discloses: wherein the tool further comprises at least one modifying agent provided in or adjacent to the tool or generated by the tool (paragraph [0032] cites: “The energy source or material 28, e.g., a thermate material, may be referred to as the pyrotechnic or energetic material. The nitrates and/or carbonates produce gas to drive molten metal, i.e., product 34, out of the ports 32 to create the opening(s) 36 in the surrounding elements. Upon ignition, the metal fuel reacts with the metal oxide exchanging the metal in the metal oxide, while releasing heat sufficient to melt the metal”).
In regard to claim 93, Huang further discloses: wherein the control mechanism is operable to dump or disperse the at least one stream of combustion products away from, or to minimise the effect of the at least one stream of combustion products on, the target (the diminishing/minimizing effect of the stream occurs towards the end of the operation when the energy source 28 starts to run out and the valve 50, 55 moves back into the closed position, since there is a specific amount of element 28 to be within the housing of the tool, as disclosed in paragraph [0049-0052] and figures 11-12).
In regard to claim 94, Huang further discloses: wherein the control mechanism is operable to control a plurality of parameters (i.e., propellant flow rate, energy, intensity, content and/or structure) of the at least one stream of combustion products (see claim 85 rejection).
In regard to claim 96, Huang further discloses: wherein the tool could operate in a multistage process (The “multistage process” is the series of single-stage processes to be executed to allow for the downhole tool to operate and function accordingly as disclosed therein; for example, paragraphs [0049-0052] introduces the single-stage steps of introducing the tool in the wellbore, placing the tool in the wellbore adjacent to the intended target, igniting element 28, etc.).
In regard to claim 97, Huang further discloses: wherein the tool is operable to direct the at least one stream of combustion products in a radially outwards direction (paragraphs [0049-0051] and figures 11-12).
In regard to claim 99, Huang discloses: A method of manipulating a target (paragraphs [0005, 0026-0027, 0049-0051]), the method comprising the steps of:
disposing a tool (10 — figures 11-12) adjacent a downhole target (16 — paragraphs [0026-0027, 0049] and figures 1 & 11-12), the tool comprising a housing (24) defining a chamber (i.e., combination of 54 and space/area comprising 28 — figures 11-12), the chamber having at least one outlet (i.e., “outlet” comprising open space starting between 50/55 and 32, leading into 32 which allows for fluid the flow in and out of the tool 10 — see figure 11 in light of the arrows 34 | furthermore, see paragraphs [0049-0051]);
a propellant (28) source comprising at least one propellant (i.e., thermate material) located within the chamber (figures 11-12 and paragraphs [0049-0051]), wherein once ignited the propellant burns to produce propellant gas (paragraphs [0032, 0049, 0051]);
an ignition mechanism for igniting the propellant source (“Penetrator head 30 includes a body 74 that forms one or more ports 32 for ejecting the gas produced by the ignited energy source 28” — paragraphs [0049] | furthermore, see paragraphs [0050-0051]); and
a control mechanism (i.e., “mechanism” comprising the combination of 32, 50, 55 allows for opening/closing, i.e., controlling, the propellant flow out of the apparatus, as shown in figures 11-12, in light of the mechanical movement of the valve member(s) and size of outlet 32 — paragraphs [0049-0050]);
igniting the propellant source such that the propellant of the propellant source deflagrates creating at least one stream of combustion products (“The one-way valves 55 are oriented to permit the product 34 produced from ignition of energy source 28 to pass from the carrier body 24 through the communication path to the ejection ports 32 and to seal the energy source 28 from hydraulic communication in the direction from the environment through the ejection port 32 and communication path to the thermate” — paragraphs [0049] | furthermore, see paragraphs [0050-0051]), the chamber directing the at least one stream of combustion products through the at least one outlet (as shown in light of dashed arrows 34 within figures 11-12), towards the target to be manipulated (paragraphs [0026-0027, 0049-0051] and figures 1 & 11-12); and
introducing the at least one stream of combustion products via the control mechanism thereby changing the content or structure of the at least one stream of combustion products (Examiner notes that after ignition of the propellant source, the propellant flow rate/energy/intensity/content/structure will vary in light of the opening/closing of the outlet(s) 32. The intensity/energy of the combustion product jet will grow as it acts to overcome the wellbore environment and structural biasing elements while regulating flow through the outlets. Paragraph [0049] cites that the “[...] size of the ports 32 may dictate the performance of the penetrator head 30”, as the biasing elements of the control mechanism act to regulate the start of the jet which in conjunction with a selected port size controls the depth of penetration).
Huang discloses that the propellant may include a thermate composition, but does not expressly disclose the use of an explosive material (such as potassium perchlorate) in keeping with applicant’s special definition (see page 10, lines 31-33 of the instant application’s specification). Furthermore, Huang is silent in regard to: “[...] introducing at least one modifying agent into the at least one stream of combustion products via the control mechanism thereby changing the content or structure of the at least one stream of combustion products.” Examiner notes that the limitation is being interpreted under BRI in light of the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections herein.
Nonetheless, Doud teaches reactive material(s) that are useful for oil and gas completions and well stimulation processes and enhanced oil and gas recovery operations (see at least abstract). Doud teaches that it is known for wellbore disintegration tools to use a variety of chemical compositions including pairing thermite “(e.g., fluorinated or chlorinated polymers such as polytetrafluoroethylene, polyvinylidene difluoride, oxidizers such as bismuth oxide, potassium perchlorate, potassium or silver nitrate, iron oxide, tungsten or molybdenum oxide, and/or intermetallic thermite such as boron, aluminum, or silicon)” (see at least paragraph [0014]). Examiner notes that the thermite pair can include any combination of the list materials (i.e., one or more modifying agents) in addition to potassium perchlorate and thermite.
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made, to modify the teachings of Huang, to include for pairing a propellant thermite with potassium perchlorate and “at least one modifying agent”, as taught by Doud, in light of simple substitution of a known propellant thermite since Doud expressly teaches that the addition of the potassium perchlorate and other materials are known alternatives (further supported by MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B).
Claim(s) 91 and 95 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0335646 A1; herein “Huang”) in view of Doud et al. (US Publication Number 2015/0239795 A1; herein “Doud”) in further view of Hosie et al. (US Publication 2004/0084189 A1; hereinafter “Hosie”).
In regard to claim 91, Huang discloses the control mechanism, as disclosed in claim 85 above.
However, Huang appears to be silent in regard to: wherein the control mechanism comprises at least one sensor.
Nonetheless, Hosie teaches a downhole tool comprising a valve. Hosie discloses: wherein the control mechanism (i.e., actuation mechanism of the valve) comprises one sensor (“[…] one or more sensors detect whether the valve is in the open position, the closed position, or a position between the open position and the closed position” — paragraph [0012, 0031 and claims 22 & 28]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made, to modify the control mechanism, as taught by Huang, to comprise one sensor, as taught by Hosie, to allow for monitoring/tracking the operation of the valve(s) during the jetting process.
In regard to claim 95, Huang discloses the control mechanism, as disclosed in claim 85 above.
However, Huang appears to be silent in regard to: wherein the control mechanism is able to respond to multiple sensors.
Nonetheless, Hosie teaches a downhole tool comprising a valve. Hosie discloses: wherein the control mechanism (i.e., actuation mechanism of the valve) is able to respond to multiple sensors (“…one or more sensors detect whether the valve is in the open position, the closed position, or a position between the open position and the closed position” — see paragraph [0012, 0031 and claims 22 & 28]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made, to modify the control mechanism, as taught by Huang, to be able to respond to multiple sensors, as taught by Hosie, to allow for monitoring/tracking the operation of the valve(s) during the jetting process.
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 NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/NEEL GIRISH PATEL/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights