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 reply of 4/30/26 has been entered.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the feature identified in Mazyar is not a “control section”, in part because, “Mazyar relied on passive failure modes […] to eventually permit reactant contact” and this is not “operable to allow” a reaction as recited (in sections A and C). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim requires a control section which is “operable to allow” the reaction, as recited. “Operable”, per https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/operable is defined as, “able to be used”. The examiner maintains that the control section, as identified, is able to be used to allow the recited reaction. If the section were inoperable i.e. the section did not allow the reaction to occur, the device would be inoperative—which is clearly not the case. While applicant has argued that the claim limitation operates by e.g. “passive failure” (which the examiner does not necessarily agree with), the examiner merely notes there is nothing in the claim precludes operation by any particular means. Applicant has chosen to recite the functionality of the control section’s “operable to allow” broadly and the claim has been interpreted accordingly.
Second argues that the assigning of one of the compartments identified as a “control section” is improper because the sections identified “are not differentiated by control vs heating function” (section B arguments). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that applicant appears to be implying that the control functionality of the control section requires something beyond being controllably section from the heating section.
It is noted that the claim does not require any particular hardware or operation that would preclude the examiner’s broad, but reasonable interpretation.
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.
Claims 9-12 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 9 recites the limitation "the electronic control section". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as depending from claim 1. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands the claim as depending from claim 8.
Dependent claim 10 is rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the electronic control section". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as depending from claim 1. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands the claim as depending from claim 8.
Dependent claim 12 is rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
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) 1, 3-5, and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazyar (US 20130056209 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mazyar teaches a downhole localized heater, comprising:
an enclosure (Fig 1, element 2);
a heating section located within the enclosure (Fig 1, one of the sections 3 and 5; although not explicit on which, the “heating section” is regarded as the section containing the reactants), the heating section including exothermic reactants contained therein (Para 0016, “individual reactants and a catalyst, if needed, are stored in compartments 3 and 5”); and
a control section located within the enclosure (Fig 1, the other of the sections 3 and 5), the control section operable to allow reactant fluid to react with the exothermic reactants and create a temperature spike after a period of time (Para 0016, when barrier 4 fails, “reactants with a catalyst, if any, can come together for an exothermic reaction”).
Mazyar is not explicit on the specific content of each of the compartments (and specifically the another reactant being a fluid).
Elsewhere in Mazyar, Mazyar teaches “one compartment contains […] for example NaCl aqueous solution” and “The second compartment contains dry super-corroding Mg alloy powder or sintered powder” and upon removal of the barrier contact between the contents of the two compartments “will initiate the exothermic reaction between the chemicals in two compartments” (Para 0023).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Mazyar by having one compartment (the heating section) contain Mg alloy powder or sintered powder and the other compartment (control section) contain NaCl aqueous solution as disclosed by a description of another variation within Mazyar because, in the embodiment relied upon, Mazyar is silent on the specific content of the sections. In the other embodiment, Mazyar teaches specifical chemicals which would be required to implement the embodiment relied upon and demonstrates that they would yield the predictable result of “initiat[ing] the exothermic reaction” upon contact after removal of the barrier (Para 0023).
Regarding claim 3, Mazyar teaches wherein a barrier within the enclosure separates the heating section from the control section (Fig 1, barrier 4).
Regarding claim 4, Mazyar in the embodiment relied upon is silent on the recited particulars of the rupture tool.
In an alternative embodiment, Mazyar teaches further including a rupture tool located within the enclosure (Fig 3, tip of knife 26), the rupture tool configured to rupture the barrier after the period of time to allow the reactant fluid to react with the exothermic reactants (Para 0020, Fig 3, “the knife 26 axially or radially through the barrier 4”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Mazyar by having the knife ruptured barrier as disclosed by a description of another variation within Mazyar because it would be a simple substitution of one known element (the pressure rupture-able barrier of Figure 1) for another (having the knife ruptured barrier of Figure 3) to obtain predictable results (rupturing a barrier to permit contact between the components of two compartments).
Regarding claim 5, Mazyar teaches wherein the reactant fluid is fully contained within the enclosure (Fig 3, Para 0023, the one compartment with the “NaCl aqueous solution” would be fully contained within the enclosure as defined. Both compartments are within the enclosure.).
Regarding claim 7, Mazyar teaches wherein the control section is located entirely within the enclosure (Fig 1, the other of the sections 3 and 5, see parent claim 1. Both sections are located entirely within the enclosure).
Regarding claim 8, Mazyar teaches wherein the control section is an electronic control section (Fig 1, the other of the sections 3 and 5, see parent claim 1. Note, for the purpose of this claim, the control section may additionally be construed as included the barrier 4 and actuation means e.g. timer, actuator, and battery. Inclusion of these means results in an “electronic control section”, see Para 0016).
Regarding claim 9, Mazyar teaches wherein the electronic control section includes a power source (As understood to dependent from claim 8, there is a battery, see Para 0016).
Regarding claim 10, Mazyar teaches wherein the power source is located within the enclosure (Para 0016, “a battery located in the element 2”).
Regarding claim 11, Mazyar teaches wherein the electronic control section includes an electronic controller (Para 0016, powered and battery operated actuator, note a battery by definition converts chemical energy to electrical energy thus the actuator is considered an electronic controller).
Regarding claim 12, Mazyar teaches wherein the electronic controller is located within the enclosure (Para 0016, actuator/controller is “located in element 2”).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazyar (US 20130056209 A1), in view of Marya (US 20160145968 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Mazyar is silent on a fusible alloy located within the enclosure, the fusible alloy operable to regulate a temperature of the downhole localized heater through the heat of fusion.
Marya teaches a fusible alloy located within the enclosure (Para 0020, 0024, there is inclusion of alloys 102 within the elastomeric material 103. This sealing material is the enclosure as a modification to Mazyar. See Para 0040 of the instant specification which broadly envisions fusible alloys as “melt-able materials”, which the alloys of the prior art would be), the fusible alloy operable to regulate a temperature of the downhole localized heater through the heat of fusion (Para 0020, 0024, the alloys are “operable” to regulate temperature by virtue of their absorption of generated heat, the amount of which is governed by its material properties including heat of fusion).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Mazyar by having the alloy included within the enclosure/elastomer as disclosed by Marya because it would allow the elastomeric sealing material to become responsive to additional stimuli which would permit it to be actuated/deactivated in response to that stimuli and it “may provide greater pressure ratings and enable mill-free, self-degradation” (Para 0018).
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 THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm ET.
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.
/THEODORE N YAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights