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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that only a single perforating gun is used to control the pressure profile in the instant invention as opposed to the two guns used by Le, and thus the claims as amended are patentable over Le is not persuasive since the claims are not limited to the use of only one perforating gun the wellbore at a time, and Le discloses all of the features of the claims with one of the two guns of Le since a single gun contains both the charges and the pressure applicator and also creates the overbalance and underbalance via detonation of the charges.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Le (US 20110209871 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Le discloses a perforating tool for perforating a subterranean formation intersected by a wellbore, the perforating tool comprising: a carrier (102) having an interior; at least one shaped charge (102-126) disposed in the interior; and a pressure applicator (secondary pressure generators, pgphs. 36, 37) disposed in the interior and adjacent to the shaped charge (pgphs. 36, 37, fig. 2), wherein the pressure applicator is configured to release a gas simultaneous with detonation of the at least one shaped charge (pgphs. 41, 37), wherein the gas passes through a perforation formed by the at least one shaped charge (pgph. 39, 48, a relatively large overbalance in the near wellbore region and in the perforations created by gases released by the pressure applicators will result in those gases passing through the perforations formed by the charges).
With respect to claims 2-5, Le discloses wherein the detonation of the at least one shaped charge creates a dynamic underbalance wherein pressure within the interior of the carrier is below hydrostatic pressure in the wellbore (pgphs. 39, 40), wherein the gas is configured to mitigate the dynamic underbalance by generating a gas pressure that increases the pressure within the interior of the carrier (pgph. 41), wherein the gas pressure is below an anticipated fracture threshold for the subterranean formation (pgph. 48), wherein the detonation of the at least one shaped charge further creates an overbalanced pressure difference between the hydrostatic pressure in the wellbore and formation fluid pressure in the subterranean formation (pgph. 48).
With respect to claim 7, Le further discloses wherein the pressure applicator is configured to release the gas in accordance with a predetermined gas parameter selected from the group consisting of pre-specified gas pressure, release volume, flow rate, and combinations of the same (pgphs. 39, 40, 48-50)
With respect to claims 11-13, Le further discloses wherein the pressure applicator is configured to release the gas for a pressure application interval between 0.01 seconds and 2 seconds (pgph. 39), and wherein the pressure applicator comprises a gas-generating material that is configured to generate the gas when initiated, wherein the gas-generating material is selected from the group consisting of thermites, metals, and metalloids (pgph. 36).
With respect to claims 14, Le further discloses an initiator (140) that is configured to apply kinetic energy, thermal energy, electrical energy, or a combination of the same to initiate the gas-generating material (pgphs. 34, 36).
The limitations of claims 15-18 and 20 are substantially similar to those of claims 1-4, 7, 12, and 14, rejected supra.
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) 6, 8, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le.
With respect to claims 6 and 19, Le fails to specifically disclose the amount of pressure added by the gas generating device, but does disclose that the additional gas pressure will not result in fracturing in pgph. 48 or unseating of a packer in pgph. 47 and discloses specifically designing the amount of pressure generators to prevent exceeding these pressures in pgphs. 47-50, specifically pgph. 49. Furthermore, Le discloses a wide range of possibilities for ratios of charges with the secondary pressure generating coating to charges without, varying from 100 to 1 to 1 to 100, which will almost certainly read on the claimed range of gas pressure generation since it is such a wide range claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included an amount of gas generators in Le to produce a pressure between 10 and 120 percent of the overbalanced pressure difference generated by the shaped charges of Le since Le discloses tailoring the use of the gas generators to multiple factors (fracture pressure, max allowable pressure on packers, max pressure rating of the string, pgphs. 47-50) and discloses such a wide range of possible inclusion of the gas generators (pgph. 36) that this limitation is almost certainly already read upon and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, pgphs. 32, 35, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included an amount of gas generators in Le to produce a pressure between 250 and 5000 psi since Le discloses tailoring the use of the gas generators to multiple factors (fracture pressure, max allowable pressure on packers, max pressure rating of the string, pgphs. 47-50) and discloses such a wide range of possible inclusion of the gas generators (pgph. 36) that this limitation is almost certainly already read upon and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, pgphs. 32, 35, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le in light of Harive (US 20180016879 A1).
With respect to claims 9 and 10 Le fails to specifically disclose the volume and flow rate generated by the gas generators.
Nevertheless, Harive discloses selecting the gas generating material size, shape, and composition in order to provide a predetermined volume over a predetermined time frame, which entails a predetermined flow rate (pgph. 33, Harive).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have tailored the type, shape, and amount of gas generators in Le to produce a predetermined volume and flow rate of gas as taught by Harive in order to provide a pre-determined underbalance in the gun to produce clean perforation tunnels and avoid damage to equipment (pgphs. 32, 33), and it would have been obvious to have used a release volume between 50 in3 and 1,000 in3 and a flow rate is between 0.1 m3/s and 10 m3/s since these are wide ranges and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, pgphs. 32, 35, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
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 KIPP CHARLES WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:00 PM - 8:00 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, 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.
/KIPP C WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 05/13/2026
Prosecution Insights