Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/823,405

ELECTRICAL SUBMERSIBLE PUMPING SYSTEM (ESP) MOTOR OIL SLINGER

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 30, 2022
Examiner
VO, ETHAN NGUYEN
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Saudi Arabian Oil Company
OA Round
3 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
25 granted / 36 resolved
+1.4% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
69
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
62.2%
+22.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
§112
11.3%
-28.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 36 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wrighton (US 11,095,191), and in view of Aldridge (US 2007/0295557), Brown (US 20130039782), Ouwenga (US 2015/0337716), Takahata (US 2024/0322624), and Brogelli (US 2022/0163047). As to claim 1, Wrighton discloses an oil slinger apparatus (116; Fig. 1B) comprising: a disc having a center annulus disposed on a motor (Fig. 1B), inner diameter, outer diameter, and feed hole. PNG media_image1.png 606 599 media_image1.png Greyscale Wrighton fails to disclose that the disc of the oil slinger is a metal disc. Aldridge, however, discloses that an oil slinger (141) comprises a metal disc (Para 0052; Fig. 1G). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Aldridge to Wrighton in order to provide exceptional strength, durability, and high melting points. Wrighton fails to disclose a wherein the center annulus comprises a space between an inner diameter and an outer diameter with at least one feed hole in the space, and a keyway disposed on the metal disc configured to fit a key for aligning the oil slinger (116) to the motor (100). Brown, however, discloses a center annulus and an annulus comprises a space between an inner diameter and an outer diameter with at least one feed hole in the space (Fig. 4). PNG media_image2.png 361 509 media_image2.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Brown to Wrighton in order to allow for better oil flow. Ouwenga, however, discloses a keyway (54; Fig. 4, Fig. 6, and Fig. 8A) disposed on a disc configured to fit a key for aligning an oil slinger to a motor (Para 0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Ouwenga to Wrighton in order to secure the oil slinger to the motor. Wrighton fails to disclose that the oil slinger apparatus (116) comprising an outer annulus, an impeller on the outer annulus with a vane around each of the at least one feed hole. Takahata, however, discloses that an oil disperser/slinger apparatus (170) comprises an outer annulus, an impeller imprint on the outer annulus with a blade around each of the at least one feed hole (Fig. 6). PNG media_image3.png 340 340 media_image3.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Takahata to Wrighton in order to slinge the oil more effectively. Wrighton fails to disclose that the impeller with a vane is imprinted. Brogelli, however, discloses an impeller with vanes and blades is imprinted (Para 0054). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Brogelli to Wrighton in order to reduce the weight, size, and implementing cost of the oil slinger. As to claim 2, the combination of Wrighton, Aldridge, Brown, Ouwenga, Takahata, and Brogelli discloses an annular groove (258; Fig. 12; Para 0117 of Takahata) in the outer annulus of the metal disc. As to claim 3, the combination of Wrighton, Aldridge, Ouwenga, Takahata, and Brogelli discloses that the metal disc is 3D printed (Para 0054 of Brogelli). As to claim 4, the combination of Wrighton, Aldridge, Brown, Ouwenga, Takahata, and Brogelli discloses that the motor is an Electrical Submersible Pump motor (Col 1, lines 21-26; Col 5, lines 16-25 of Wrighton). As to claim 5, the combination of Wrighton, Aldridge, Brown, Ouwenga, Takahata, and Brogelli discloses that the vane around each of the at least one feed hole is equally spaced (Fig. 6 of Takahata; Para 0054 of Brogelli, which discloses the impeller further comprises vanes). PNG media_image4.png 326 342 media_image4.png Greyscale As to claim 6, the combination of Wrighton, Aldridge, Brown, Ouwenga, Takahata, and Brogelli discloses that the center annulus aligns with a shaft on the motor. (Col 5, lines 58-60 of Wrighton, which discloses “In some implementations, the opening 108 can be formed and the fluid slinger 116 can be attached nearer the end of the shaft 106 in which axial opening 120 is formed.”; Para 0035 of Ouwenga). 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 ETHAN N VO whose telephone number is (571)270-7593. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am - 5pm. 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached on 571 272 3560. 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. /ETHAN NGUYEN VO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834 /CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 30, 2022
Application Filed
May 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 12, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 08, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 23, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603538
ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592597
SELECTIVE PERMEABILITY ROTOR STRUCTURE FOR INTERIOR PERMANENT MAGNET MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587059
Electric Motor Coolant Frame and Header
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580446
ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580501
VIBRATION WAVE RADIATING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+23.2%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 36 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month