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 Amendment
The Preliminary Amendment filed July 31, 2025 has been entered and considered with the Office Action below.
Drawings
The drawings were received on May 23, 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 8. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 5 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 5 requires that the shaped charge “include an explosive load having a weight of 28 grams to 32 grams”. As claim 1 also requires “an explosive load” with a “weight greater than 22.7 grams”, it is unclear if claim 5 is merely further defining the weight of the explosive load of claim s or if this is a second explosive load. For the purposes of examination, claim 5 is being treated as further defining the weight of the explosive load of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 1-5, 7-11, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2019/0040722) in view of Mauldin (US 2005/0115441) and Dai et al. (US 2019/0113315, Dai).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 17: Yang discloses a perforating gun assembly 100 comprising:
a perforating gun housing 129 comprising metal as shown by the cross-hatching in Fig 1B and having: an outer diameter from 3.35 inches to 3.75 inches [0008], [0046]; and
at least one shaped charge 123-126 positioned in the perforating gun housing Fig 1B.
Yang discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except for the metal of the perforating gun housing being steel and except for each shaped charge of the at least one shaped charge comprising an explosive load having a weight greater than 22.7 grams.
Yang discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the perforating gun housing being made of steel and the weight of the explosive load in the shaped charge being from 28 grams to 35 grams. The perforating gun housing of Yang is shown as metal in Figure 1B.
Mauldin discloses a perforating gun assembly 40 similar to that of Yang. The housing 42 is made from a steel [0042].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Yang so that the housing was made of steel with the properties of the housing in Mauldin in order to have formed a perforating gun assembly that had less chances of sticking from swelling [0041].
Yang, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except for each shaped charge of the at least one shaped charge comprising an explosive load having a weight greater than 22.7 grams.
Dai discloses a shaped charge 10 that is used in a perforating gun having an outer diameter similar to that of Yang [0011]. Dai also discloses that the weight of the explosive load of the shaped charge is greater than 26 grams [0009].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Yang to use shaped charges with explosive loads having a weight greater than 22.7 grams, as taught by Dai, in order to have formed an enhanced perforating gun assembly [0011].
Regarding claims 2 and 15: Wherein the perforating gun housing has a length of 8.5 inches [0008], [0046] of Jang.
Regarding claims 3 and 16: Wherein the perforating gun housing has a minimum yield strength of 650 MPa [0042] of Jang.
Regarding claims 4, 8, and 19: Wherein the perforating gun housing has an inner diameter from 2.6 inches to 2.9 inches [0008], [0013] of Jang and a wall thickness from 0.3375 inches to 0.4125 inches [0013] of Jang.
Regarding claim 5: Wherein the shaped charge includes an explosive load having a weight of 28 grams to 32 grams [0009] of Dai.
Regarding claims 7 and 9: The perforating gun assembly further comprising a shaped charge loading tube 130 of Yang positioned in the perforating gun housing Fig 1B of Yang, the shaped charge loading tube defining a shaped charge receptacle for receiving the shaped charge Fig 1B, [0045] of Yang.
Regarding claim 10: Wherein the shaped charge includes a shaped charge case 21 of Dai defining a hollow cavity Fig 1B and 2 of Dai, the explosive load 23 of Dai being positioned in the hollow cavity Fig 1B and 2 of Dai.
Regarding claim 11: Wherein the shaped charge includes a liner 22 of Dai disposed adjacent the explosive load and configured to retain the explosive load in the hollow cavity of the shaped charge case [0027] of Dai.
Regarding claim 17: Yang, as modified, discloses a method of perforating a wellbore [0053], [0069] of Yang, the method comprising:
positioning the above described perforating gun assembly in a section of a wellbore [0040]-[0043], [0069] of Yang; and
detonating the shaped charge to form a perforation tunnel in the wellbore [0040]-[0043], [0069] of Yang.
Regarding claim 18: Wherein the wellbore is a steel casing and the perforation tunnel has an entry hole diameter from 0.30 inches to 0.85 inches [0038] of Dai.
Regarding claim 20: While it is known that perforating gun housings swell to some degree upon detonation, this feature is not disclosed by Yang, as modified.
Mauldin further discloses that it is well known that swelling or distortion of a perforating gun assembly takes place upon detonation [0013]. Mauldin further discloses that the steel and design of the perforating gun therein reduces the amount of swelling so that a housing with an outer diameter of 2.03 inches will only swell to an outer diameter of 2.086 inches [0042]. Thus the housing only swells by 2.76%.
First, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the housing of the perforating gun assembly of Yang, as modified, would swell to some degree after detonation as this phenomenon is well known in the art as taught by Mauldin [0013].
Further, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Yang so that the housing was made of steel with the properties of the housing in Mauldin in order to have formed a perforating gun assembly that had less chances of sticking from swelling [0041]. This would have resulted in the housing of Yang, as modified, only swelling about 2.76% of its original diameter. This would be a swell diameter of the housing of Yang between 1.0276 inches (for a housing having a diameter of 1 inch) and 8.2208 inches (for a housing having a diameter of 8 inches. The claimed range of 3.6 inches and 3.78 inches.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Mauldin and Dai as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Loehken et al. (US 2019/0309606, Loehken).
Yang, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except that the perforating gun assembly further comprises a shaped charge inlay disposed over a portion of the liner such that the portion of the liner is positioned between the inlay and the explosive load.
Loehken discloses a shaped charge similar to that of Dai. The shaped charge 100 of Loeken includes a shaped charge inlay 110 disposed over the liner 120 that retains the explosive load 1140 in the hollow cavity 1121 of the shaped charge case 140.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Yang to include a shaped charge inlay disposed over a portion of the liner, as taught by Loehken, in order to have disrupt collapse of the existing liner upon detonation of the shaped charge and thereby change the geometry of a perforating jet and resulting perforation created by the shaped charge Abstract.
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 1-8, 10, 13, and 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 11, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,716. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are merely broader recitations of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,716 as set forth below.
Claims 1-3 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,716.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,716.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,716.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,716.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,716.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,716.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,716.
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,716.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,716.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,499,401 in view of Mauldin (US 2005/0115441).
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,499,401 includes all of the elements of claim 1 of the instant application except for the perforating gun housing being made of steel.
Mauldin discloses a perforating gun assembly 40 similar to that of U.S. Patent No. 11,499,401. The housing 42 is made from a steel [0042].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified U.S. Patent No. 11,499,401 so that the housing was made of steel with the properties of the housing in Mauldin in order to have formed a perforating gun assembly that had less chances of sticking from swelling [0041].
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,499,401.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,499,401.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,499,401.
Claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,499,401 includes all of the elements of claim 1 of the instant application except for the perforating gun housing being made of steel with claim 15 being an obvious method of use of the apparatus of claim 1 U.S. Patent No. 11,499,401.
Mauldin discloses a perforating gun assembly 40 similar to that of U.S. Patent No. 11,499,401. The housing 42 is made from a steel [0042].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified U.S. Patent No. 11,499,401 so that the housing was made of steel with the properties of the housing in Mauldin in order to have formed a perforating gun assembly that had less chances of sticking from swelling [0041].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 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.
Claims 6 and 13 would be allowable if the Double Patenting rejections, set forth in this Office Action, were overcome and to include 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:
Regarding claims 6 and 13: The prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a perforating gun assembly that includes at least one open shaped charge with an explosive load having a weight of greater than 22.7 grams as recited in the claimed combination.
Regarding claim 14: Claim 14 is considered allowable due to its dependence on claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER H GAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7029. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 6-3:30 and every other Friday 6-11.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/JENNIFER H GAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
JHG
12/3/2025