DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Application No. 18958468 filed on 11/25/2024 are presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2025, 8/22/2025, and 08/27/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation in the preamble, “…shaft for an ESP motor…” should read, “…shaft for an electric submersible pump (ESP) motor…”. 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 1-6, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima et al. (US 2005/0285468; Hereinafter, “Fukushima”) in view of El-Baraka Khadija et al. (EP 2856612 B1; Hereinafter, “Khadija”)
Regarding claim 1: Fukushima discloses a rotor module (20) configured to be concentrically disposed on a drive shaft (24) for an ESP (intended use limitation that has no patentable weight) motor (title), comprising:
a plurality of laminations (26; para [0030], and fig. 1), each configured to be concentrically disposed on the drive shaft (24); a plurality of magnets (22); two end rings (23); and two or more retaining strips (25); wherein:
the plurality of laminations (26) are axially stacked (fig. 1,3) to form a carrier (21) having a plurality of axially-extending pockets (penetrating holes 26c), each configured to receive one or more of the plurality of magnets (22), and two or more axially extending slots (penetrating holes 26b), each configured to receive one of the two or more retaining strips (25);
PNG
media_image1.png
623
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
each of the two or more retaining strips (25) extends through both end rings (23; fig. 1) and the corresponding slot (26b) in the carrier (21), and is configured to retain the end rings (23) onto both ends of the carrier (fig. 1); the carrier (21) is disposed between the two end rings (23); and the two or more retaining strips (25) are configured to retain the end rings (23) onto both ends of the carrier (21) without threading (since 25 is a rivet, rivets are known to have no threading).
Fukushima does not specifically disclose that the retainers 25 are strip shaped.
However, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to shape Fukushima’s retainers as strips, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Also, Khadija discloses retainers (17, since they retain the magnets radially and axially) that are strip shaped.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the shape of the rivets 25 to be a strip shaped to ease its deformation, thus to ease the manufacturing of the rotor.
Regarding claim 2/1: Fukushima in view of Khadija discloses the limitations of claim 1 and the modified Fukushima further discloses that the two or more retaining strips (25) are configured to retain the end rings (23) onto both ends of the carrier (21) using permanent deformation (as known with rivets) of one or more ends of the strip (25).
Regarding claim 3/1: Fukushima in view of Khadija discloses the limitations of claim 1 and the Khadija further discloses that at least one end of each retaining strip (17) is configured to be bent in order to retain the end rings onto the carrier (see fig. 2b and 2c).
Regarding claim 4/1: Fukushima in view of Khadija discloses the limitations of claim 1 and t the modified Fukushima further discloses that each end ring (23) has (at least partially) low magnetic permeability (stainless steel, an aluminum alloy, a copper alloy, and a ceramics; para [0040]).
Regarding claim 5/1, and 6/1: Fukushima in view of Khadija discloses the limitations of claim 1 and the Khadija further discloses that each retaining strips (17) comprises magnetic steel (made of spring steel, which is a magnetic material); each retaining strip comprises spring steel and is configured to act as a compression spring (spring steel).
PNG
media_image2.png
161
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12: Fukushima discloses a method of assembling a rotor module (20), comprising: stacking a plurality of laminations (26) on a mandrel to form a carrier (21), wherein the carrier (21) comprises a plurality of axially-extending pockets (26c) configured to retain a plurality of magnets (22); disposing the plurality of magnets (22) within the pockets of the carrier (21); disposing an end ring (23) at each end of the carrier (21); externally compressing the laminations (21) and end rings (23) axially; inserting a plurality of retaining strips (25) into corresponding slots (26b) within the carrier (21), wherein the retaining strips (25) extend axially through the end rings (23) and the carrier (21); permanently deforming (as known with rivets) one or more end of each retaining strip (25); and releasing the external compression; wherein the permanently deformed one or more end of each retaining strip (25) retains the end rings (23) onto both ends of the carrier (21).
Fukushima does not specifically disclose that the retainers 25 are strip shaped.
However, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to shape Fukushima’s retainers as strips, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Also, Khadija discloses retainers (17, since they retain the magnets radially and axially) that are strip shaped.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the shape of the rivets 25 to be a strip shaped to ease its deformation, thus to ease the manufacturing of the rotor.
Regarding claim 13/12: Fukushima in view of Khadija discloses the limitations of claim 12 and the Khadija further discloses providing, by the retaining strips (17), a compression spring force on the carrier and end rings (since 17 is made of a spring material).
PNG
media_image2.png
161
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11, 14-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ELNAKIB whose telephone number is (571)270-0638. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-4:00PM. 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.
/AHMED ELNAKIB/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights