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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Regarding rejections of the claims under §103:
Claims 1 and 8-12 were rejected as being obvious over Klahn in view of Boyd and Sheth. Claims 4-5, 7, and 13-17 were rejected as being obvious over Klahn in view of Boyd, Sheth, and Schmitt. The Applicant amended claims 1 and 14 and canceled claims 11 and 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 6/23/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 14 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,549,341 to Kasabian.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 recites the claim limitation of “wherein each of the first plurality of permanent magnets have a shape that corresponds to the shape of each of the depressions” which is also recited by claim 1 on which claim 9 depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0363660 to Klahn in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,952,757 to Boyd, Jr. (hereinafter Boyd), U.S. Patent No. 4,549,341 to Kasabian, and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0244595 to Sheth.
Regarding claim 1, Klahn teaches an electrical submersible pump (FIG. 1, 100) powered by a permanent magnet motor (FIG. 1, 110) having a first rotor system (FIG. 1, 114), a first stator (FIG. 1, 116), and a first housing (FIG. 1, 112), wherein:
the first rotor system comprises a first single piece shaft (FIG. 2A, 114A; Paragraph [0007]), first bearings (Paragraph [0016]), and a plurality of permanent magnets (FIG. 2A, 114C);
the first stator comprising stacked laminations (Paragraph [0019]); and
the first housing encompassing the stator (Paragraph [0017]).
Klahn does not teach the first rotor system comprising a first upper bearing and a first lower bearing;
the first single piece shaft having machined depressions that are configured to locate the first plurality of permanent magnets between the first upper bearing and the first lower bearing;
each of the plurality of permanent magnets having a shape that corresponds to the shape of each of the depressions;
the first stator comprising copper windings;
the first upper bearing being positioned between the proximal ends of the first rotor and first stator copper windings and the proximal end of the shaft;
the first lower bearing being positioned between the distal ends of the first rotor and first stator copper windings and the distal end of the shaft; and
the first housing being coupled to a head and a base of the first rotor system proximate to the upper bearing and lower bearing, respectively.
However, Boyd teaches a permanent magnet motor with permanent magnets (FIG. 3, 28) axially between a first upper bearing (FIG. 3, 56A) and a first lower bearing (FIG. 3, 56B);
the first upper bearing being positioned between the proximal ends of the first rotor (FIG. 3, 10) and the first stator windings (FIG. 3, 66) and the proximal end of the shaft (FIG. 3, 12);
the first lower bearing being positioned between the distal ends of the first rotor (FIG. 3, 10) and first stator windings (FIG. 3, 66) and the distal end of the shaft (FIG. 3, 12); and
the first housing coupled to a head and a base of the first rotor system proximate to the upper bearing and lower bearing, respectively (FIG. 3; 54A, 54B).
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 electrical submersible pump of Klahn with the bearings of Boyd to properly support the shaft and reduce wear on the contact of the shaft.
Klahn in view of Boyd does not teach the first single piece shaft having machined depressions that are configured to locate the first plurality of permanent magnets; each of the plurality of permanent magnets having a shape that corresponds to the shape of each of the depressions; and the first stator comprising copper windings.
However, Kasabian teaches a single piece shaft (FIG. 3; 10, 60; Column 4 lines 1-16) having at least partly machined depressions (FIG. 4, 70; Column 4 lines 17-23) for permanent magnets (FIG. 5, 80), each of the plurality of permanent magnets having a shape that corresponds to the shape of each of the depressions (Column 4 lines 37-46).
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 electrical submersible pump of Klahn in view of Boyd with the machined depressions of Kasabian to provide a more secure fitting and sizing of the permanent magnets to the shaft.
Klahn in view of Boyd and Kasabian does not teach the first stator comprising copper windings.
However, Sheth teaches an electrical submersible pump with a stator (FIG. 1, 30) comprising copper windings (Paragraph [0024]).
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 electrical submersible pump of Klahn in view of Boyd and Kasabian with the copper windings of Sheth as copper has high electrical conductivity.
Regarding claim 8, Klahn in view of Boyd, Kasabian, and Sheth teaches the electrical submersible pump of claim 1, wherein Kasabian further teaches the first shaft having depressions (FIG. 4, 70) extending from an outer circumference of the first shaft towards a central axis of the first shaft; and the first plurality of permanent magnets being positioned within the depressions (FIG. 5, 80; Column 4 lines 37-46).
Regarding claim 9, Klahn in view of Boyd, Kasabian, and Sheth teaches the electrical submersible pump of claim 8, wherein Kasabian further teaches each of the plurality of permanent magnets having a shape that corresponds to the shape of each of the depressions (FIG. 5, 80; Column 4 lines 37-46).
Regarding claim 10, Klahn in view of Boyd, Kasabian, and Sheth teaches the electrical submersible pump of claim 8, wherein Klahn further teaches the stacked laminations of the first stator being positioned around the depressions embedded with the permanent magnets (Paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 12, Klahn in view of Boyd, Kasabian, and Sheth teaches the electrical submersible pump of claim 1, wherein Klahn further teaches the first rotor having a magnetic field, the first stator having a magnetic field, and the magnetic field of the rotor to stator being maintained in exact alignment (Paragraph [0017]).
Claims 4-5, 7, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klahn in view of Boyd, Kasabian, and Sheth and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0061647 to Schmitt.
Regarding claim 4, Klahn in view of Boyd, Kasabian, and Sheth teaches the electrical submersible pump of claim 1, wherein Boyd further teaches the shaft having a proximal end (FIG. 3, 12, right side) that extends past the first upper bearing and a distal end (FIG. 3, 12, left side) that extends past the first lower bearing.
Klahn in view of Boyd, Kasabian, and Sheth does not teach the attachment of one or more additional rotor systems in series.
However, Schmitt teaches a rotor system (FIG. 2, 28a-d) with a shaft (FIG. 2, 26a-26d) extending axially for attachment of additional rotor systems in series (Paragraph [0013]).
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 electrical submersible pump of Klahn in view of Boyd, Kasabian, and Sheth with the additional rotor systems serial connections of Schmitt as it results in improved torque performance (Paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, Klahn in view of Boyd, Kasabian, Sheth, and Schmitt teaches the electrical submersible pump of claim 4, wherein Boyd further teaches each of the one or more additional rotor systems comprising (the structure of the rotor system of Klahn in view of Boyd, Kasabian, and Sheth could reasonably be implemented into each of the rotor systems of Schmitt) an additional plurality of permanent magnets (FIG. 3, 28) positioned between an additional upper bearing (FIG. 3, 56A) and an additional lower bearing (FIG. 3, 56B).
Regarding claim 7, Klahn in view of Boyd, Kasabian, Sheth, and Schmitt teaches the electrical submersible pump of claim 4, wherein Schmitt further teaches the attachment of the first rotor system to the one or more additional rotor systems in series transferring torque across the first rotor system and the one or more additional rotor systems (Paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 13, Klahn in view of Boyd, Kasabian, Sheth, and Schmitt teaches the electrical submersible pump of claim 5, wherein Schmitt further teaches each of the one or more additional rotor systems being encompassed by an additional stator (FIG. 2, 24a-24d); each of the one or more additional rotor systems having a magnetic field; each additional stator having a magnetic field; the magnetic field of each of the one or more additional rotor systems to additional stator being maintained in exact alignment (Paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 14, Klahn teaches an electrical submersible pump (FIG. 1, 100) powered by a permanent magnet motor (FIG. 1, 110) having a first rotor system (FIG. 1, 114), a first stator (FIG. 1, 116), and a first housing (FIG. 1, 112), wherein:
the first rotor system comprises a first single piece shaft (FIG. 2A, 114A; Paragraph [0007]), first bearings (Paragraph [0016]), and a plurality of permanent magnets (FIG. 2A, 114C);
the first stator comprising stacked laminations (Paragraph [0019]); and
the first housing encompassing the stator (Paragraph [0017]).
Klahn does not teach a plurality of permanent magnet motors coupled in series to transfer torque to each other, wherein:
each rotor system comprises a first upper bearing and a first lower bearing;
each single piece shaft having machined depressions that are configured to locate the first plurality of permanent magnets between the first upper bearing and the first lower bearing;
each of the plurality of permanent magnets having a shape that corresponds to the shape of each of the depressions;
each stator comprising copper windings;
each upper bearing being positioned between the proximal ends of the rotor and stator copper windings and the proximal end of the shaft;
each lower bearing is positioned between the distal ends of the rotor and stator copper windings and the distal end of the shaft; and
each housing is coupled to a head and a base of the first rotor system proximate to the upper bearing and lower bearing, respectively.
However, Boyd teaches a permanent magnet motor with permanent magnets (FIG. 3, 28) axially between an upper bearing (FIG. 3, 56A) and a lower bearing (FIG. 3, 56B);
the upper bearing being positioned between the proximal ends of the rotor (FIG. 3, 10) and the stator windings (FIG. 3, 66) and the proximal end of the shaft (FIG. 3, 12);
the first lower bearing being positioned between the distal ends of the rotor (FIG. 3, 10) and stator windings (FIG. 3, 66) and the distal end of the shaft (FIG. 3, 12); and
the housing coupled to a head and a base of the rotor system proximate to the upper bearing and lower bearing, respectively (FIG. 3; 54A, 54B).
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 electrical submersible pump of Klahn with the bearings of Boyd to properly support the shaft and reduce wear on the contact of the shaft.
Klahn in view of Boyd does not teach a plurality of permanent magnet motors coupled in series to transfer torque to each other, each single piece shaft having machined depressions that are configured to locate the first plurality of permanent magnets; each of the plurality of permanent magnets having a shape that corresponds to the shape of each of the depressions; and wherein the stator comprises copper windings.
However, Kasabian teaches a single piece shaft (FIG. 3; 10, 60; Column 4 lines 1-16) having at least partly machined depressions (FIG. 4, 70; Column 4 lines 17-23) for permanent magnets (FIG. 5, 80), each of the plurality of permanent magnets having a shape that corresponds to the shape of each of the depressions (Column 4 lines 37-46).
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 electrical submersible pump of Klahn in view of Boyd with the machined depressions of Kasabian to provide a more secure fitting and sizing of the permanent magnets to the shaft.
However, Sheth teaches an electrical submersible pump with a stator (FIG. 1, 30) comprising copper windings (Paragraph [0024]).
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 electrical submersible pump of Klahn in view of Boyd and Kasabian with the copper windings of Sheth as copper has high electrical conductivity.
Klahn in view of Boyd, Kasabian, and Sheth does not teach a plurality of permanent magnet motors coupled in series to transfer torque to each other.
However, Schmitt teaches a rotor system (FIG. 2, 28a-d) with a shaft (FIG. 2, 26a-26d) extending axially for attachment of additional rotor systems in series (Paragraph [0013]).
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 electrical submersible pump of Klahn in view of Boyd, Kasabian, and Sheth with the additional rotor systems serial connections of Schmitt as it results in improved torque performance (Paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 15, Klahn in view of Boyd, Kasabian, Sheth, and Schmitt teaches the electrical submersible pump of claim 14, wherein Klahn further teaches each rotor (the structure of the rotor of Klahn in view of Boyd, Kasabian, and Sheth could reasonably be implemented into each of the rotor systems of Schmitt) having a magnetic field, each stator having a magnetic field, and the rotor and stator magnetic fields being in exact alignment (Paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 17, Klahn in view of Boyd, Kasabian, Sheth, and Schmitt teaches the electrical submersible pump of claim 14, wherein Klahn further teaches each rotor system (the structure of the rotor system of Klahn in view of Boyd, Kasabian, and Sheth could reasonably be implemented into each of the rotor systems of Schmitt) having a magnetic field, each stator having a magnetic field, and the magnetic field of each rotor system to stator is maintained in exact alignment (Paragraph [0017]).
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