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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-7, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0152155 to Flett et al. (hereinafter Flett; cited by Applicant on 3/7/2024) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0127520 to Liu et al. (hereinafter Liu; cited by Applicant on 7/17/2026) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0230781 to Glasscock et al. (hereinafter Glasscock).
Regarding claim 1, Flett teaches a stator (FIG. 4, 120) for an ESP motor (FIG. 1, 110) for use at a high operating temperature environment (Paragraph [0003]) downhole in a well (FIG. 1, 104), comprising:
a lamination stack (FIG. 4, 128) having a plurality of axial slots (FIG. 8, 148);
an electrical conductor (FIG. 4, 130) disposed in the plurality of slots and forming a coil with turns (Paragraph [0005]), with each turn spaced apart by a spacing distance (FIG. 10, 130);
an electrical insulator (FIG. 5B; 134, 135) for each portion of the conductor for each turn within one of the plurality of slots, wherein:
the insulator is configured to electrically insulate the portion of the conductor,
each insulator comprises two ends extending out of the corresponding slot (FIG. 4; 130, upper and lower portions);
adjacent ends of adjacent insulators are staggered by an end stagger distance (FIG. 11, 158); and
each insulating section comprises rigid insulation configured for high operating temperature (Paragraph [0030]).
Flett does not teach each insulator comprising two or more abutting insulating sections,
a joint being formed by abutting ends of abutting insulating sections,
the joints of adjacent insulators being staggered by an abutting stagger distance, and
one or more overlapping insulator disposed over the joints of adjacent insulators within each slot.
However, Liu teaches a motor with windings (FIG. 24; 150, 152) having two or more abutting insulating sections (FIG. 24; 902, 912),
a joint being formed by abutting ends of abutting insulating sections (FIG. 24, 960), and
one or more overlapping insulator (FIG. 24, 182) disposed over the joints of adjacent insulators within each slot.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stator of Flett with the joint and insulator of Liu as it provides a resilient insulator that can operate at high temperatures (Paragraph [0069]).
Flett in view of Liu does not teach the joints of adjacent insulators being staggered by an abutting stagger distance.
However, Glasscock teaches a spliced joint assembly wherein the joints of adjacent insulators are staggered by a stagger distance (Paragraph [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stator of Flett in view of Liu with the staggered joints of Glasscock to reduce the overlap between the joints and prevent conduction between the joints.
Regarding claim 2, Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock teaches the stator of claim 1, wherein Flett further teaches each insulating section comprising a rigid and/or inorganic insulation being PEEK (Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 3, Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock teaches the stator of claim 1.
Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock does not teach the ESP motor having a length of approximately 3 to 20 meters and wherein each insulating section has a length of approximately 0.5-3 meters.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stator of Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock to have the desired lengths of the ESP motor and the insulating section as a matter of design choice to match with the desired operating parameters of the ESP motor (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 4, Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock teaches the stator of claim 1, wherein the abutting stagger distance is sufficient to carry turn-to-turn voltage (Glasscock Paragraph [0026]-[0027]), and wherein the overlapping insulator has a length sufficient to address abutting stagger distance of adjacent insulators in a slot, as well as additional length to prevent grounding at the joints (Liu Paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 5, Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock teaches the stator of claim 1, wherein Glasscock further teaches each insulating section having a length, and the lengths of some of the insulating sections correspond (FIG. 2A; 113, 115).
Regarding claim 6, Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock teaches the stator of claim 1, wherein Glasscock further teaches two or more of the insulating sections belonging to group I (FIG. 2A; 113, 115), and two or more of the insulating sections belonging to group II (FIG. 2A; 123, 125), wherein the insulating sections in group I are all approximately equal in length, and the insulating sections in group II are all approximately equal in length.
Regarding claim 7, Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock teaches the stator of claim 1, wherein Glasscock further teaches the insulating sections comprising a number of different lengths (FIG. 2A; 113, 123, 114, 124), and the number of different lengths is less than a number of insulating sections in the stator.
Regarding claim 11, Flett teaches a method of assembling a stator (FIG. 4, 120) for an ESP motor (FIG. 1, 110), comprising:
providing a lamination stack (FIG. 4, 128) having a plurality of axially extending slots (FIG. 8, 148);
disposing an electrical conductor (FIG. 4, 130) in the plurality of slots to form a coil with turns (Paragraph [0005]), wherein each turn is spaced apart (FIG. 10, 130);
disposing an electrical insulator (FIG. 5B; 134, 135) in order to insulate each portion of the conductor for each turn within one of the plurality of slots, wherein:
each insulator comprises two ends extending out of one of the plurality of slots (FIG. 4; 130, upper and lower portions),
adjacent ends of adjacent insulators are staggered by an end stagger distance (FIG. 11, 158), and
the insulating sections each comprise rigid insulation (Paragraph [0030]).
Flett does not teach each insulator comprising two or more abutting sections,
a joint being formed by abutting ends of abutting insulation sections,
the joints of adjacent insulators being staggered by an abutting stagger distance, and
disposing one or more overlapping insulator over the joints of adjacent insulators within each slot.
However, Liu teaches a motor with windings (FIG. 24; 150, 152) having two or more abutting insulating sections (FIG. 24; 902, 912)
a joint being formed by abutting ends of abutting insulating sections (FIG. 24, 960), and
disposing one or more overlapping insulator (FIG. 24, 182) over the joints of adjacent insulators within each slot.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Flett with the joint and insulator of Liu as it provides a resilient insulator that can operate at high temperatures (Paragraph [0069]).
Flett in view of Liu does not teach the joints of adjacent insulators being staggered by an abutting stagger distance.
However, Glasscock teaches a spliced joint assembly wherein the joints of adjacent insulators are staggered by a stagger distance (Paragraph [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Flett in view of Liu with the staggered joints of Glasscock to reduce the overlap between the joints and prevent conduction between the joints.
Regarding claim 12, Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock teaches the method of claim 11, wherein Liu further teaches disposing an electrical insulator comprising disposing two or more abutting insulating sections (FIG. 24; 902, 912).
Regarding claim 13, Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising selecting the abutting stagger distance to be sufficient to carry turn-to-turn voltage (Glasscock Paragraph [0026]-[0027]), and selecting a length of the overlap insulator sufficient to address abutting stagger distance for joints of adjacent insulators in a slot, as well additional length to prevent grounding at the joints (Liu Paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 14, Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock teaches the method of claim 14, wherein Glasscock further teaches selecting a length of each insulating section, wherein the length of some of the insulating sections correspond (FIG. 2A; 113, 115).
Regarding claim 15, Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock teaches the method of claim 14, wherein Glasscock further teaches selecting a length of each insulating section comprising selecting two or more of the insulating sections to belong to group I (FIG. 2A, 113, 115), and two or more of the insulating sections to belong to group II (FIG. 2A; 123, 125), wherein the insulating sections in group I are all approximately equal in length, and the insulating sections in group II are all approximately equal in length.
Regarding claim 16, Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock teaches the method of claim 14, wherein Glasscock further teaches selecting the insulating sections to comprise a number of different lengths which is less than a number of insulating sections (FIG. 2A; 113, 123, 114, 124).
Regarding claim 17, Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock teaches the method of claim 12, wherein Glasscock further teaches disposing two or more abutting sections comprises mixing and matching insulating sections of different lengths (FIG. 2A; 113, 123, 114, 124).
Regarding claim 18, Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock teaches the method of claim 11, wherein Glasscock further teaches selecting locations of joints and the abutting stagger distances to minimize the number of different length variants of insulating sections (FIG. 2A; 113, 123, 114, 124).
Regarding claim 20, Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock teaches the method of claim 12, wherein Liu further teaches disposing two or more abutting insulating sections comprises disposing a number of insulating sections axially abutting to provide a length of the electrical insulator (Paragraph [0068]).
Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock does not teach the motor having a length of approximately 3-20 meters and wherein each insulating section has a length of approximately 0.5 to 3.0 meters.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock to have the desired lengths of the ESP motor and the insulating section as a matter of design choice to match with the desired operating parameters of the ESP motor (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0152074 to Head et al. (hereinafter Head).
Regarding claim 8, Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock teaches the stator of claim 1.
Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock does not teach the lamination stack comprising two or more lamination stack portions, the stator further comprising one or more spacer disposed between adjacent lamination stack portions, and the overlapping insulator being axially aligned with the spacer.
However, Head teaches a stator with a lamination stack comprising two or more lamination stack portions (FIG. 5, 20), the stator further comprising one or more spacer disposed between adjacent lamination stack portions (FIG. 5, 21), and the overlapping insulator being axially aligned with the spacer (in view of Liu, the overlapping insulator would connect spliced connections between stator portions 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stator of Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock with the spacers of Head to provide further mechanical support along the length of the motor.
Regarding claim 19, Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock teaches the method of claim 11.
Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock does not teach the lamination stack comprising two or more laminations stack portions, the method further comprising disposing a spacer between adjacent lamination stack portions, wherein disposing one or more overlapping insulator comprises disposing one of the one or more overlapping insulator aligned with the spacer.
However, Head teaches a stator with a lamination stack comprising two or more lamination stack portions (FIG. 5, 20), the method further comprising disposing a spacer (FIG. 5, 21) between adjacent lamination stack portions, wherein disposing one or more overlapping insulator comprises disposing one of the one or more overlapping insulator aligned with the spacer (in view of Liu, the overlapping insulator would connect spliced connections between stator portions 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock with the spacers of Head to provide further mechanical support along the length of the motor.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0087502 to Rumbaugh et al. (hereinafter Rumbaugh).
Regarding claim 9, Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock teaches the stator of claim 1.
Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock does not teach each abutting end of abutting insulating sections being stepped, the overlapping insulator being disposed within a pocket jointly formed by the stepped abutting ends, and the stepped abutting ends each having a step length of at least the voltage spacing.
However, Rumbaugh teaches each end of insulating sections being stepped (FIG. 5; 514, 524), the overlapping insulator being disposed within a pocket jointly formed by the stepped ends (FIG. 5, 540), and the stepped ends each having a step length of at least the voltage spacing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stator of Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock with the stepped ends of Rumbaugh to reduce the footprint of the insulator taken up in the direction perpendicular to the axial direction.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock and in further view of Chinese Patent No. 112039248 to Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 10, Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock teaches the stator of claim 1.
Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock does not teach the abutting ends of abutting insulation sections being configured to correspondingly mate, with a male abutting end to a female abutting end, the corresponding male abutting end comprising a stepped projection, the corresponding female abutting end comprising a stepped receptacle, a length of the stepped projection is approximately equal to a length of the stepped receptacle, the length of the stepped projection and stepped receptacle is at least the voltage spacing, and the overlapping insulator is integral to the abutting insulating sections.
However, Zhang teaches abutting ends of abutting insulating sections being configured to correspondingly mate, with a male abutting end (FIG. 3, 8) to a female abutting end (FIG. 3, 9), the corresponding male abutting end comprising a stepped projection (FIG. 4, 8), the corresponding female abutting end comprising a stepped receptacle (FIG. 4, 9), a length of the stepped projection being approximately equal to a length of the stepped receptacle (FIG. 4; 8, 9), the length of the stepped projection and stepped receptacle being at least the voltage spacing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stator of Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock with the mating insulating sections of Zhang to provide a sturdier mechanical connection between the insulating sections.
Flett in view of Liu and Glasscock does not teach the overlapping insulator being integral to the abutting insulating sections.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stator of Flett in view of Liu, Glasscock, and Zhang by making the overlapping insulator be integral to the abutting insulating sections as a matter of design choice to require less components for fabrication of the connection (see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm 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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights