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
Regarding objections to the drawings:
The drawings were objected to due to not showing every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The replacement drawings received 6/4/2025 corrected the informality, therefore the objection was withdrawn.
Regarding objections to the claims:
Claim 10 was objected to due to an informality. The Applicant amended the claim to correct the informality, therefore the objection was withdrawn.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §§102 and 103:
Claim 1 was rejected as being anticipated by Klahn. Claims 2-3 and 8-9 were rejected as being obvious over Klahn in view of Boyd. Claims 4-7 were rejected as being obvious over Klahn in view of Boyd and Schmitt. Claim 10 was rejected as being obvious over Klahn in view of Boyd and Sheth. The Applicant amended claims 1, 4-5, and 8-10, canceled claims 2-3 and 6, and added new claims 11-17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Boyd is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Boyd is analogous to Klahn as they both involve the subject matter of permanent magnet motors and their supporting structures which is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem being addressed by the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14 lines 12-13 the phrase “the first rotor system” should instead be “each rotor system” to more align with the language of claim 14 line 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 8-12 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) 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) comprising a first shaft (FIG. 2A, 114A), first bearings (Paragraph [0016]), a first stator (FIG. 1, 116), and a first housing (FIG. 1, 112), wherein:
the first shaft comprises a first rotor system (FIG. 1, 114);
the first rotor system comprising a first 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 permanent magnets being positioned between a first upper bearing and a first lower bearing;
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 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 with the copper windings of Sheth as copper has high electrical conductivity.
Regarding claim 8, Klahn in view of Boyd and Sheth teaches the electrical submersible pump of claim 1, wherein Klahn further teaches the first shaft having depressions (FIG. 2B, spaces between 114G) 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. 2B, 114C; Paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 9, Klahn in view of Boyd and Sheth teaches the electrical submersible pump of claim 8, wherein Klahn further teaches each of the plurality of permanent magnets having a shape that corresponds to the shape of each of the depressions (FIG. 2B, 114C).
Regarding claim 10, Klahn in view of Boyd 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 11, Klahn in view of Boyd and Sheth teaches the electrical submersible pump of claim 1, wherein Klahn further teaches the first shaft being a single piece of material (Paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 12, Klahn in view of Boyd 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, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klahn in view of Boyd 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 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 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 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, 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 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, 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, 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 rotor (FIG. 1, 110), wherein:
the permanent magnet motor comprises a shaft (FIG. 2A, 114A), bearings (Paragraph [0016]), a stator (FIG. 1, 116), and a housing (FIG. 1, 112);
the shaft comprises a rotor system (FIG. 1, 114);
the rotor system comprises a plurality of permanent magnets (FIG. 2A, 114C);
the stator comprises stacked laminations (Paragraph [0019]); and
the 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:
the plurality of permanent magnets are positioned between an upper bearing and a lower bearing;
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, wherein the stator comprises 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 with the copper windings of Sheth as copper has high electrical conductivity.
Klahn in view of Boyd 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 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, 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 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 16, Klahn in view of Boyd, Sheth, and Schmitt teaches the electrical submersible pump of claim 14, wherein Klahn further teaches each shaft (the structure of the rotor system of Klahn in view of Boyd and Sheth could reasonably be implemented into each of the rotor systems of Schmitt) being a single piece of material (Paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 17, Klahn in view of Boyd, 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 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
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 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