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 Amendment filed 06/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 8-17 & 21-29 are pending in the application. Claims 10-17, 21-23 & 25-27 are withdrawn. Claims 5-7 & 18-20 are cancelled. Claims 28-29 are entered as “New”.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 28 should read --The ESP assembly of claim 1, wherein the angular position instrument is configured to assign a binary value to each of the plurality of sensors based on whether one of the plurality of permanent magnets is detected proximate to the a respective sensor of the plurality of sensors, and wherein the angular position instrument is configured to output the signal indicating the angular position of the angular position encoder based on a combination of the binary values from each of the plurality of sensors.--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 8-9, 24 & 28-29 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.
As to Claim 1, the limitation “those permanent magnet of the plurality of magnets which are disposed in a first one of the plurality of circular tracks are all positioned within a 165 degree arc of the first one of the plurality of circular tracks”, in Lines 12-15, is indefinite. The limitation is grammatically confusing. It is not clear which magnets are considered “those magnets”, and the term lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted where a first set of permanent magnets of the plurality of permanent magnets are disposed in a first track of the plurality of circular tracks, and each permanent magnet of the first set of permanent magnets is disposed within a 165 degree arc of the first track of the plurality of circular tracks.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 24 & 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eslinger (U.S. PGPub 2021/0140290), in view of Tsuchimoto (U.S. PGPub 2022/0073129), further in view of Sheth (U.S. PGPub 2021/0317729), further in view of Esberger (U.S. PGPub 2021/0270123).
As to Claim 1, Eslinger teaches an electric submersible pump (ESP) assembly (210), comprising:
an electric submersible motor (350) having a stator (see Figure 3 below; one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude motor 350 has a stator when considering Paragraph 0137 and Figure 3), a rotor (see Figure 3 below; one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude motor 350 has a rotor when considering Paragraph 0137 and Figure 3), and a first drive shaft (see Figure 3 below; Paragraph 0057), wherein the rotor (see Figure 3 below) is coupled to (as shown in Figure 3) the first drive shaft (see Figure 3 below)
a seal section (370) having a second drive shaft (see Figure 3 below; Paragraph 0057) coupled to (as shown in Figure 3; Paragraph 0057) the first drive shaft (see Figure 3 below);
a pump assembly (320) having a third drive shaft (see Figure 3 below; Paragraph 0057) coupled to (as shown in Figure 3; Paragraph 0057) the second drive shaft (see Figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
804
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Eslinger Figure 3, Modified by Examiner
Eslinger continues to teach the use of sensors (216) communicating with (Paragraph 0040; as shown in Figure 2) a controller (230/250), and teaches a need to determine an angular speed/position (Paragraph 0136), but is silent on the use of an angular position detector comprising an angular position instrument and an angular position encoder,
wherein the angular position encoder is mechanically coupled to one of the first drive shaft, the second drive shaft, or the third drive shaft, wherein the angular position encoder comprises a plurality of permanent magnets disposed in a plurality of circular tracks on the angular position encoder, wherein those permanent magnet of the plurality of magnets which are disposed in a first one of the plurality of circular tracks are all positioned within a 165 degree arc of the first one of the plurality of circular tracks, and
wherein the angular position instrument comprises a plurality of sensors aligned to the plurality of circular tracks on the angular position encoder and a transducer coupled to the plurality of sensors, wherein the angular position instrument is configured to output a signal indicating an angular position of the angular position encoder based on inputs from the plurality of sensors.
Tsuchimoto describes a means for determining an angular position of a rotor, and teaches an angular position detector (3/4) comprising an angular position instrument (4) and an angular position encoder (3),
wherein the angular position encoder (3) comprises (as shown in Figure 1A) a plurality of magnets (the magnets within the portion of tracks 11/12 –the right side of the defining line in Figure 1A below—shown in Figure 1A below, as described in Paragraph 0042) disposed in (as shown in Figure 1A) a plurality of circular tracks (11/12 and the track between 11/12 with no magnets, as shown in Figure 1A) on (as shown in Figure 1A) the angular position encoder (3), wherein those permanent magnets (the magnets within the portion of track 12 –the right side of the defining line in Figure 1A below—shown in Figure 1A below, as described in Paragraph 0042) of the plurality of magnets (the magnets within the portion of tracks 11/12 –the right side of the defining line in Figure 1A below—shown in Figure 1A below, as described in Paragraph 0042) which are disposed in (as shown in Figure 1A) a first one (12) of the plurality of circular tracks (11/12 and the track between 11/12 with no magnets, as shown in Figure 1A) are all positioned within (as shown in Figure 1A below) a 165 degree arc (an arc slight greater than the arc shown in Figure 1A below) of the first one (11) of the plurality of circular tracks (11/12 and the track between 11/12 with no magnets, as shown in Figure 1A), and
wherein the angular position instrument (4) comprises a plurality of sensors (13/14, as shown in Figure 1B) aligned to (Paragraph 0046) the plurality of circular tracks (11/12 and the track between 11/12 with not magnets, as shown in Figure 1A) on (as shown in Figure 1A) the angular position encoder (3) and a transducer (15/16, where one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude Tsuchimoto 15/16 must be a combined transducer/transmitter, since Tsuchimoto 15/16 both detects the permanent magnet and transmits a signal to Tsuchimoto angle calculation unit 17, as shown in Tsuchimoto Figure 4) coupled to (as shown in Figure 4) the plurality of sensors (13/14), wherein the angular position instrument (4) is configured to output a signal (the 6-step and 4-step signals described in Paragraph 0053) indicating (as described in Paragraph 0053) an angular position (the position calculated by 17, as described in Paragraph 0054) of the angular position encoder (3) based on (Paragraph 0051) inputs (the signals from 13/14, described in Paragraph 0051) from (Paragraph 0051) the plurality of sensors (13/14).
PNG
media_image2.png
775
795
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tsuchimoto Figure 1A, Modified by Examiner
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the angular position detector, as taught by Tsuchimoto, in the ESP and controller, as taught by Eslinger, "to provide an angle detector that can obtain a high-resolution angle as soon as angle detection has been started (Paragraph 0009).”
Tsuchimoto is silent on where angular position encoder is placed and the type of magnets used in the angular position encoder, so does not explicitly teach the angular position encoder is mechanically coupled to one of the first drive shaft, the second drive shaft, or the third drive shaft; and the encoder magnets are permanent magnets.
Sheth describes a means for determining an angular position of a rotor (Paragraph 0022) in an ESP (Figure 1), and teaches an angular position instrument (the rotary encoder described in Paragraph 0022) located on the rotary shaft (Paragraph 0022) in the motor (50), the seal section (40), and/or the pump assembly (20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to place the angular position detector, as taught by Eslinger, as modified, in the motor, the seal section, and/or the pump assembly, as taught by Sheth, to “provide data on the angular motion of the rotary shaft including position, speed, distance, or any combination thereof (Paragraph 0022).”
Modifying Sheth into Eslinger, as modified, results in the angular position encoder (Tsuchimoto 3) is mechanically coupled to (Sheth Paragraph 0022) one of the first drive shaft (see Eslinger Figure 3 above, where placing the encoder in the motor, as taught by Sheth, results in the encoder being placed on the first drive shaft), the second drive shaft (see Eslinger Figure 3 above, where placing the encoder in the seal section, as taught by Sheth, results in the encoder being placed on the second drive shaft), or the third drive shaft; (see Eslinger Figure 3 above, where placing the encoder in the pump assembly, as taught by Sheth, results in the encoder being placed on the third drive shaft).
Esberger describes a means for determining an angular position of a rotor (Paragraphs 0051/0052) in an ESP (Figure 1), and teaches the angular position encoder (103) comprises a plurality of permanent (Paragraph 0066) magnets (111/112).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the magnets, as taught by Eslinger, as modified, in permanent magnets, as taught by Esberger, since the use of permanent magnets is well-known and yields predictable results, i.e., known and permanent magnetic polarity.
As to Claim 2, Eslinger, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the angular position detector (Tsuchimoto 3/4) is disposed inside (Sheth Paragraph 0022) the seal section (Eslinger 370) and wherein the angular position encoder (Tsuchimoto 3) is mechanically coupled to (as shown in Tsuchimoto Figure 1A; Tsuchimoto Paragraph 0041) the second drive shaft (see Eslinger Figure 3 in the Claim 1 rejection above). Since Tsuchimoto teaches the encoder being fixed to the axle/shaft, Sheth teaches the angular position detector being located in the seal section, and Eslinger teaches the seal section having the second shaft, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the angular position encoder is mechanically coupled to the second drive shaft in the seal section.
As to Claim 3, Eslinger, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the angular position detector (Tsuchimoto 3/4) is disposed inside (Sheth Paragraph 0022) the pump assembly (Eslinger 320) and wherein the angular position encoder (Tsuchimoto Figure3) is mechanically coupled to (as shown in Tsuchimoto Figure 1A; Tsuchimoto Paragraph 0041) the third drive shaft (see Eslinger Figure 3 in the Claim 1 rejection above). Since Tsuchimoto teaches the encoder being fixed to the axle/shaft, Sheth teaches the angular position detector being located in the pump assembly, and Eslinger teaches the pump assembly having the third shaft, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the angular position encoder is mechanically coupled to the third drive shaft in the pump assembly.
As to Claim 4, Eslinger, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the angular position detector (Tsuchimoto 3/4) is disposed inside (Sheth Paragraph 0022) the electric submersible motor (Eslinger 350) and wherein the angular position encoder (Tsuchimoto 3) is mechanically coupled to (as shown in Tsuchimoto Figure 1A; Tsuchimoto Paragraph 0041) the first drive shaft (see Eslinger Figure 3 in the Claim 1 rejection above). Since Tsuchimoto teaches the encoder being fixed to the axle/shaft, Sheth teaches the angular position detector being located in the electric submersible motor, and Eslinger teaches the electric submersible motor having the first shaft, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the angular position encoder is mechanically coupled to the first drive shaft in the electric submersible motor.
As to Claim 8, Eslinger, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, but is silent on the type of motor used in the ESP, so does not explicitly teach the electric submersible motor is a permanent magnet electric submersible motor (PMESM) and wherein the rotor comprises a second plurality of permanent magnets.
Sheth describes a similar ESP, and teaches the electric submersible motor (200) is a permanent magnet (the permanent magnets 216 described in Paragraph 0030) electric submersible motor (200) and wherein the rotor (202) comprises a second plurality of (as described in Paragraph 0030, and shown in Figure 3) permanent magnets (216).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the PMESM, as taught by Sheth, in place of the motor, as taught by Eslinger, as modified, to have “more torque with a higher efficiency while using less material (Paragraph 0018).”
As to Claim 24, Eslinger, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the angular position instrument (Tsuchimoto 4) further comprises a transmitter (Tsuchimoto 15/16, where one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude Tsuchimoto 15/16 must be a combined transducer/transmitter, since Tsuchimoto 15/16 both detects the permanent magnet and transmits a signal to Tsuchimoto angle calculation unit 17, as shown in Tsuchimoto Figure 4) coupled to (as shown in Tsuchimoto Figure 4) the transducer (Tsuchimoto 15/16), wherein the transmitter (Tsuchimoto 15/16) outputs a digital value (one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the values transmitted by Tsuchimoto 15/16, as described in Tsuchimoto Paragraph 0053 is digital, since the values are discrete and quantized) encoding (as described in Tsuchimoto Paragraphs 0051-0053) the angular position (the position calculated by Tsuchimoto 17, as described in Tsuchimoto Paragraph 0054) of the angular position encoder (Tsuchimoto 3).
As to Claim 28, Eslinger, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the angular position instrument (Tsuchimoto 4) is configured to assign a binary value (“0” or “1”, as described in Tsuchimoto Paragraphs 0047/0048) to each of the plurality of sensors (Tsuchimoto 13/14) based on whether one of the plurality of permanent magnets (the magnets within the portion of Tsuchimoto tracks 11/12 –the right side of the defining line in Tsuchimoto Figure 1A below—shown in Tsuchimoto Figure 1A below, as described in Tsuchimoto Paragraph 0042) is detected proximate to (as described in Tsuchimoto Paragraphs 0047/0048) the sensor (Tsuchimoto 13/14) and wherein the angular position instrument (Tsuchimoto 4) is configured to output the signal (the 6-step and 4-step signals described in Paragraph Tsuchimoto 0053) indicating (as described in Tsuchimoto Paragraph 0053) indicating an angular position (the position calculated by Tsuchimoto 17, as described in Tsuchimoto Paragraph 0054) of the angular position encoder (Tsuchimoto 3) based on a combination of (Tsuchimoto Paragraphs 0050/0051; Tsuchimoto Figures 4/5) the binary values (“0” or “1”, as described in Tsuchimoto Paragraphs 0047/0048) from the plurality of sensors (Tsuchimoto 13/14).
As to Claim 29, Eslinger, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the angular position instrument (Tsuchimoto 4) is enclosed in (Sheth Paragraph 0022) a sealed housing (the housing of Eslinger seal section 370, or the housing of Eslinger motor 350). One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude each of the Eslinger seal section and motor have housings, as shown in Eslinger Figure 3, and would conclude each of the seal section and the motor housings are broadly at least partially sealed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eslinger, in view of Tsuchimoto, further in view of Sheth, further in view of Esberger, as evidenced by wikipedia.org (see attached Induction motor – Wikipedia pdf from wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_motor).
As to Claim 9, Eslinger, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, but is silent on the type of motor used in the ESP, so does not explicitly teach the electric submersible motor is an AC induction motor.
Esberger describes a similar ESP, and teaches the electric submersible motor (10) is an AC induction motor (Paragraph 0072). Note the website wikipedia.org states induction motors are inherently AC electric motors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the AC induction motor, as taught by Esberger, in place of the motor, as taught by Eslinger, as modified, since the use of induction motors is well-known (see Paragraph 0072), and yields predictable results, i.e., self-starting, reliable, and economical (see attached Induction motor – Wikipedia pdf).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112 rejections, Applicant overcame the previous rejections. However, the amendments to the claims required new 112(b) rejections, as described above.
Regarding the 103 rejection for Claim 1, Applicant argues Tsuchimoto does not teach the limitation “those permanent magnet of the plurality of magnets which are disposed in a first one of the plurality of circular tracks are all positioned within a 165 degree arc of the first one of the plurality of circular tracks”, since Applicant believes Tsuchimoto shows the plurality of magnets evenly disposed around each of the entire tracks. Examiner disagrees.
There is no requirement to include all of the magnets shown in Tsuchimoto Figure 1A as the plurality of magnets. As such, only a portion of the magnets shown in Tsuchimoto Figure 1A may be interpreted as the claimed plurality of magnets. When the limitation is interpreted in this manner, Tsuchimoto teaches the limitation, resulting in each of the active claims being rejected, as described above.
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 DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights