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 .
DETAILED ACTION
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 14, 19-21, 23, 25-27, 30, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SNYDER (U.S. Patent Publication US 2010/0038142 A1) in view of BEIMGRABEN (U.S. Patent 4,495,073), and in view of RUDD (U.S. Patent 7,188,687 B2).
Regarding claim 1, SNYDER discloses: a drilling assembly (see Abstract) comprising:
a positive displacement drilling motor (54, 100, 120, 140, 160, 200, 220) containing a metal stator (110, 112; 122, 130, 132; 142; 162; 202; 222) (¶0035, ¶0044, ¶0049; ¶0051-¶0052; ¶0056; ¶0061) (see Figures 3-9), a metal rotor (104; 124; 144; 164; 210, 214; 234, 236) (¶0036; ¶0046, ¶0049; ¶0051-¶0052; ¶0056-¶0057; ¶0061) (see Figures 3-9) at least partially disposed within the metal stator (see Figures 2-6 and 8-9), and a motor gap defined between the metal rotor and a lobe of the metal stator (see ¶0034, ¶0043; ¶0048; ¶0050; ¶0055; ¶0060 that discloses a clearance cross sectional fit up to about eighty thousandths of an inch).
SNYDER fails to disclose a particle adjusting mechanism that is a metal filter screen. Specifically SYNDER fails to disclose a particle adjusting mechanism having a housing positioned upstream of the metal stator of the positive displacement drilling motor, the housing including an inner surface defining a central bore, the particle adjusting mechanism including a metal filter screen, the metal filter screen having an open first end configured to receive a media from the central bore of the housing, a closed second end opposite the open first end, a cylindrical outer surface, and an internal filter cavity extending between the open first end and the closed second end, the particle adjusting mechanism including an annular space defined by the inner surface of the housing and the outer surface of the metal filter screen, the metal filter screen including a plurality of filter openings configured to provide a fluid passageway for the media flowing from the internal filter cavity, through the plurality of filter openings, and into the annular space, the plurality of filter openings have a maximum opening dimension that is equal to or less than a size of the motor gap, wherein the closed second end is configured to retain solid particles within the internal filter cavity as the media flows through the plurality of filter openings; wherein the particle adjusting mechanism is configured to adjust a solid particle condition of the media flowing through the particle adjusting mechanism to a treated condition in which any remaining solid particles in the media after flowing through the plurality of filter openings in the metal filter screen will travel through the motor gap without widening the motor gap to a failure gap size.
Regarding claim 1, BEIMGRABEN discloses: a drilling assembly (see Column 1, lines 7-14) comprising:
a particle adjusting mechanism (10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17) having a housing (1) positioned upstream of the metal stator of the positive displacement drilling motor (see Column 1, lines 44-61 that discloses the placement is anywhere in the drilling string in order to prevent particles of a size larger than that is part of the filter), the housing including an inner surface defining a central bore (see Figures 1, 3, and 4 that shows a central bore), the particle adjusting mechanism including a filter screen (14, 14a) (Column 2, lines 57-66), the filter screen having an open first end (the open first end is near label (12) in Figure 4) configured to receive a media from the central bore of the housing (see Figures 1, 3, and 4), a closed second end (the closed second end is at the bottom (near (14) in Figure 4) opposite the open first end (see Figures 1, 3, and 4), a cylindrical outer surface (see Figures 1, 3, and 4 that shows a tapered cylindrical outer surface), and an internal filter cavity extending between the open first end and the closed second end (see Figures 3 and 4 that shows an internal filter cavity), the particle adjusting mechanism including an annular space (1d) defined by the inner surface of the housing and the outer surface of the metal filter screen (see Figures 1, 3, and 4), the filter screen including a plurality of filter openings (14a) configured to provide a fluid passageway for the media flowing from the internal filter cavity (see Figures 1, 3, and 4, Column 2, lines 57-66) through the plurality of filter openings (see Figures 1, 3, and 4), and into the annular space (1d), wherein the closed second end is configured to retain solid particles within the internal filter cavity as the media flows through the plurality of filter openings (see Figures 1, 3, and 4, Column 2, lines 57-66);
wherein the particle adjusting mechanism is configured to adjust a solid particle condition of the media flowing through the particle adjusting mechanism to a treated condition in which any remaining solid particles in the media after flowing through the plurality of filter openings in the metal filter screen will travel through the motor gap without widening the motor gap to a failure gap size (the claimed limitation directed to “the particle adjusting mechanism is configured to adjust a solid particle condition of the media flowing through the particle adjusting mechanism to a treated condition in which any remaining solid particles in the media after flowing through the plurality of filter openings in the metal filter screen will travel through the motor gap without widening the motor gap to a failure gap size” is considered as a functional limitation. It should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, BEIMGRABEN is capable of performing the claimed function since the particle adjusting mechanism (i.e. filter(s)) are used to adjust the solid particle condition of a media flowing through it (i.e. filtering out the solid particles that are within a specific size) that would then travel to the components downstream of the filters, thereby meeting the functional limitation).
BEIMGRABEN further teaches that the plurality of filter openings are intended to filter out debris in order to avoid a hazard of any drilling tools and/or instruments below (downstream) of the filter (see Column 2, lines 57-66), however, fails to specifically disclose the plurality of filter openings have a maximum opening dimension that is equal to or less than a size of the motor gap, but this would be obvious based on the teachings of BEIMGRABEN.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a particle adjusting mechanism having a housing positioned upstream of the metal stator of the positive displacement drilling motor, the housing including an inner surface defining a central bore, the particle adjusting mechanism including a metal filter screen, the metal filter screen having an open first end configured to receive a media from the central bore of the housing, a closed second end opposite the open first end, a cylindrical outer surface, and an internal filter cavity extending between the open first end and the closed second end, the particle adjusting mechanism including an annular space defined by the inner surface of the housing and the outer surface of the metal filter screen, the metal filter screen including a plurality of filter openings configured to provide a fluid passageway for the media flowing from the internal filter cavity, through the plurality of filter openings, and into the annular space, wherein the closed second end is configured to retain solid particles within the internal filter cavity as the media flows through the plurality of filter openings; wherein the particle adjusting mechanism is configured to adjust a solid particle condition of the media flowing through the particle adjusting mechanism to a treated condition in which any remaining solid particles in the media after flowing through the plurality of filter openings in the metal filter screen will travel through the motor gap without widening the motor gap to a failure gap size in the drilling assembly of SNYDER, since utilizing removing solid particles from the media with a filter screen is well known in the art as evidence by BEIMGRABEN.
It would require only routine skill in the art to utilize a particle adjusting mechanism that includes a filter screen in order to keep solid particles from entering the drilling assembly and having a plurality of filter openings with a maximum opening dimension that is equal to or less than a size of the motor gap in the drilling assembly of SNYDER based on the teachings of BEIMGRABEN, in order to protect the motor from the hazard of debris that is larger than the motor gap. BEIMGRABEN discloses that the plurality of filter openings are intended to filter out debris in order to avoid a hazard of any drilling tools and/or instruments below/downstream of the filter (see Column 2, lines 57-66). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, would use the teaching of BEIMGRABEN to design the filter such that the plurality of filter openings have a maximum opening dimension that is equal to or less than a size of the motor gap, in order to protect the motor from damage by the particles by allowing fluid to flow thru the filter and keeping debris that would damage or clog the motor from flowing to the motor. Sizing the openings on a filter to protect components from debris is well known in the art, as evidence by BEIMGRABEN, thereby requiring only routine skill in the art to design a filter by selecting the proper size openings to keep particles from flowing past it and damaging components (i.e. the motor due to fluid flows thru the motor via the motor gap), thereby protecting the motor from damage from debris in the fluid.
The modified drilling assembly of SNYDER/ BEIMGRABEN discloses the claimed invention as discussed above, however, fails to specifically disclose that the filter screen is made of metal.
Regarding claim 1, RUDD teaches:
a particle adjusting mechanism (10, 70) (see Figures 5, 6, 8, and 9) including a metal filter screen (10, 72) (Column 6, lines 11-24, Column 7, lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the particle adjusting mechanism use a metal filter screen, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Furthermore, RUDD teaches metal filter screens are well known in the art. Utilizing known materials for known purposes (i.e. filter screens) requires only routine skill in the art and produces predictable results (i.e. the ability to have a strong filter that is able to hold debris as taught by BEIMGRABEN, as well as, be capable of operating in the desired environment).
Regarding claim 2, SNYDER fails to disclose: the failure gap size is a size of the motor gap that causes the metal rotor to lock up within the metal stator or to slow down to a reduced rotational rate that renders drilling inefficient.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to determine that a particle size that is larger than the ”largest particle size” would be a failure gap size, since a particle above the largest particle size expected would not be able to pass between the metal stator and metal rotor of SNYDER due to the limitation of the flexibility of the components. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the failure gap size is a size of the motor gap that causes the metal rotor to lock up within the metal stator or to slow down to a reduced rotational rate that renders drilling inefficient in the drilling assembly of SNYDER, since the metal stator and metal rotor of SNYDER have a limited flexibility, thereby, a failure gap size would obviously be a size of the motor gap that causes the metal rotor to lock up or to slow down due to the inability of a particle above the largest particle size to pass between the metal stator and metal rotor.
Regarding claim 4, the modified drilling assembly of SNYDER/ BEIMGRABEN /RUDD discloses: in the treated condition any remaining solid particles in the media fit through the motor gap (the claimed limitation directed to “in the treated condition any remaining solid particles in the media fit through the motor gap” is considered as a functional limitation. It should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, the modified drilling assembly of SNYDER/ BEIMGRABEN /RUDD is capable of performing the claimed function, since BEIMGRABEN is designed to filter out the larger solid particle that is expected to pass through the motor, and therefore, any remaining solid particles in the media will fit through the motor gap).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have in the treated condition any remaining solid particles in the media fit through the motor gap in the modified drilling assembly of SNYDER/ BEIMGRABEN /RUDD, in order to protect the motor from damage and wear, since solid particles that cannot fit thru the motor gap would obviously get stuck causing the motor to stop, get clogged, or to damage the motor.
Regarding claim 5, SNYDER discloses: the size of the motor gap is 0.005 inches to 0.020 inches (see ¶0034, ¶0043; ¶0048; ¶0050; ¶0055; ¶0060 that discloses a clearance cross sectional fit up to about eighty thousandths of an inch (.008 inch), which is within the claimed range, thereby meeting the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 7, BEIMGRABEN further teaches: the solid particle condition is an amount of solid particles contained in the media (this limitation is merely stating what is considered to be the solid particle condition, which the modified drilling assembly of SNYDER/ BEIMGRABEN /RUDD has a solid particle condition due to solid particles contained in the media); wherein the plurality of filter openings in the metal filter screen is configured to remove at least a portion of any solid particles contained in the media (the claimed limitation directed to “the plurality of filter openings in the metal filter screen is configured to remove at least a portion of any solid particles contained in the media” is consider as a functional limitation. It should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, BEIMGRABEN is capable of performing the claimed function, since the particle adjusting mechanism (i.e. filter of BEIMGRABEN) is configured to remove at least a portion of any solid particles contained in the media since the filters have openings where larger size particles are not able to pass thru and are retained within the filter).
Regarding claim 14, BEIMGRABEN further teaches: the solid particle condition is a size, a dimension, or a shape of any solid particles contained in the media (this limitation is merely stating what is considered to be the solid particle condition, which a solid particle condition being a size, a dimension, or a shape of any solid particles contained in the media is met since BEIMGRABEN discloses solid particles in the media); wherein the plurality of filter openings in the metal filter screen is configured to reduce the size, reduce the dimension, deform, or modify the shape of at least a portion of any solid particles contained in the media (see Figures 1, 3, and 4, that shows the filter screen is configured to reduce the size, reduce the dimension, deform, or modify the shape of at least a portion of any solid particles contained in the media, since it keeps larger sized particles from exiting out of the filter screen and retaining the debris within it, thereby reducing the size of the solid particles in the media).
Regarding claim 19, SNYDER discloses: the positive displacement drilling motor is a Moineau motor (¶0004).
Regarding claim 20, the modified drilling assembly of SNYDER/ BEIMGRABEN /RUDD as discussed above in claim 1 would inherently perform the method of drilling a subterranean wellbore as claimed in claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, the modified drilling assembly of SNYDER/ BEIMGRABEN /RUDD as discussed above in claim 4 would inherently perform the method of drilling a subterranean wellbore as claimed in claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, the modified drilling assembly of SNYDER/ BEIMGRABEN /RUDD as discussed above in claim 7 would inherently perform the method of drilling a subterranean wellbore as claimed in claim 23.
Regarding claim 25, the modified drilling assembly of SNYDER/ BEIMGRABEN /RUDD as discussed above in claim 7 would inherently perform the method of drilling a subterranean wellbore as claimed in claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, the modified drilling assembly of SNYDER/ BEIMGRABEN /RUDD as discussed above would inherently perform the method of drilling a subterranean wellbore since the solid particles that are filtered out as disclosed by BEIMGRABEN would be collected in the internal filter cavity (see Figures 1, 3, and 4 and Column 2, lines 57-66).
Regarding claim 27, the modified drilling assembly of SNYDER/ BEIMGRABEN /RUDD discloses the claimed invention. BEIMGRABEN teaches using multiple filters (see Column 1, lines 44-61) at different areas of the drilling assembly, however, fails to disclose the plurality of filter openings comprises a first set of filter openings and a second set of filter openings, the second set of filter openings being downstream of the first set of filter openings, and wherein step (b) further comprises collecting a first portion of the solid particles of a first size range contained in the media using the first set of filter openings, and collecting a second portion of the solid particles of a second size range contained in the media using the second set of filter openings downstream of the first set of filter openings in the particle adjustment mechanism; wherein the first size range is larger than the second size range.
Regarding claim 27, RUDD teaches: the plurality of filter openings comprises a first set of filter openings (76) and a second set of filter openings (75), the second set of filter openings being downstream of the first set of filter openings (see Figures 5 and 8, where the second set of filter openings is located downstream due to being inside of (74)), and wherein step (b) further comprises collecting a first portion of the solid particles of a first size range contained in the media using the first set of filter openings and collecting a second portion of the solid particles of a second size range contained in the media using the second set of filter openings (see Figures 5 and 8); wherein the first size range is larger than the second size range (see Figures 5 and 8, where the first size is larger in diameter due to the second size range is a thin slot).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a first set of filter openings in a first filter and a second set of filter openings in a second filter where the first size range is larger than a second size range in the modified drilling assembly of SNYDER/ BEIMGRABEN /RUDD, in order to provide the desired protection from debris. Furthermore, having the first size range being larger and closer to the top of the drilling assembly would produce a desired result of removing debris easily and provide protection from debris that can easily be removed and cleared from the drilling assembly. In addition, providing a second filter that has a second size, where the first size range is larger than the second size range, is obvious in order to further reduce the debris. It is obvious to have the first filter collect the first size that is larger than the second filter that is downstream of the first filter, in order for the second filter to filter out debris (if the first and second filters filter the same size or the second filter is larger than the first filter size than the second filter provides no filtering, since the first filter disclosed by BEIMGRABEN collects the debris).
Regarding claim 30, the modified drilling assembly of SNYDER/ BEIMGRABEN /RUDD as discussed above in claim 14 would inherently perform the method of drilling a subterranean wellbore as claimed in claim 30.
Regarding claim 37, the modified drilling assembly of SNYDER/ BEIMGRABEN /RUDD discloses: the metal filter screen and the housing have no components formed of any material that degrades, breaks down, or melts at temperatures above 320°F ( a negative limitation is met if the prior art discloses that the components degrades, breaks down, or melts at temperatures above 320°F. None of the prior art of SNYDER, BEIMGRABEN, or RUDD disclose that their components are formed of any material that degrades, breaks down, or melts at temperatures above 320°F, and therefore, meet the claimed limitations.
Alternatively, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 14, 19-21, 23, 25-27, 30, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SNYDER (U.S. Patent Publication US 2010/0038142 A1), in view of BEIMGRABEN (U.S. Patent 4,495,073), in view of FOX (U.S. Patent 3,971,450), and in view of RUDD (U.S. Patent 7,188,687 B2).
In the alternative, if further proof is needed to show that the plurality of filter openings having a maximum opening dimension that is equal to or less than a size of the motor gap is obvious, FOX states this relationship.
FOX discloses on Column 9, line 60 – Column 10, line 14 specifically “the holes 111 and 114 are of a size, similar to the ports 105, no greater than the smallest dimension of the smallest opening through the fluid motor” (Column 9, line 68 – Column 10, line 6, see Figure 2B). The holes being “no greater than” is considered as a “maximum opening dimension”. “The smallest dimension of the smallest opening through the fluid motor” is that the smallest dimension of the motor gap. FOX clearly teaches that the plurality of filter openings (111, 114) have a maximum opening dimension (“no greater than”) that is equal to or less than a size of the motor gap (“the smallest dimension (less than a size) of the smallest opening through the fluid motor (motor gap)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the plurality of filter openings have a maximum opening dimension that is equal to or less than a size of the motor gap in the modified drilling assembly of SNYDER/ BEIMGRABEN/ RUDD, in order to prevent the fluid motor from being clogged with debris (see Column 9, line 68 – Column 10, line 6 of FOX).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified drilling assembly of SNYDER/ BEIMGRABEN /FOX/RUDD as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PAFITIS (U.S. Patent 6,241,494 B1).
Regarding claim 3, SNYDER discloses: that the motor gap is .008 inches (see ¶0034, ¶0043; ¶0048; ¶0050; ¶0055; ¶0060 that discloses a clearance cross sectional fit up to about eighty thousandths of an inch), however, fails to disclose the failure gap size is greater than 0.020 inches.
Regarding claim 3, PAFITIS discloses that the gap size was between .023+ 0.005 inches (see Column 4, lines 22-25), and that the gap size is designed for the largest solid particle expected to pass through the motor (Column 3, lines 48-57).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the failure gap size is greater than 0.020 inches in the modified drilling assembly of SNYDER/ BEIMGRABEN /FOX /RUDD, since PAFITIS discloses that the gap size (negative interference) is larger than 0.020 inches and that the gap size is designed to allow the “largest solid particles to pass through the motor” (i.e. where the largest solid particle sets up the failure gap size (see discussion above)).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified drilling assembly of SNYDER/ BEIMGRABEN /FOX /RUDD as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of legal precedent.
Regarding claim 24, SNYDER discloses that it is well knowns to have high temperatures in the subterranean wellbore (see ¶0010 and ¶0042), however, fails to specifically disclose that the temperature within the subterranean wellbore is between 320°F and 1110°F.
The specification does not disclose the criticality of the temperature range being between 320° F. and 1110° F being in the subterranean wellbore. SYNDER discloses using a metal stator and a metal rotor (see rejections above), as well as, that the drilling assembly is used in high temperatures in the subterranean wellbore (see ¶0010 and ¶0042 of SNYDER).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a temperature within the subterranean wellbore is between 320° F. and 1110° F, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP §2144.05). Furthermore, SNYDER discloses using materials capable of handling the claimed range of temperatures (i.e. using a metal stator and a metal rotor), as well as, being able to operate at a high temperatures in the subterranean wellbore (see ¶0010 and ¶0042 of SNYDER).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 22 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.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on July 17, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 12,305,640 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
With the approved terminal disclaimer, the double patenting rejection with respect to U.S. Patent 12,305,640 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose the plurality of filter openings having a maximum opening dimension that is equal to or less than a size of the motor gap. The Examiner agrees, however, this is obvious based on BEIMGRABEN. BEIMGRABEN teaches in Column 1, lines 44-61 that the placement of the filter is anywhere in the drilling string in order to prevent particles of a size larger than that is part of the filter (emphasis added). Sizing the openings in a filter in order to filter out the undesirably sized debris, requires only routine skill in the art and produces predictable results (i.e. the ability for small debris to flow thru the motor gap without damaging the motor). The Examiner would like to note that the amended limitation is not impermissible hindsight, since the teaching of BEIMGRABEN clearly discloses that the function of a filter is to keep debris from flowing past it and damaging components downstream of it. Creating a filter with the proper sizing to protect the motor by having the openings in the filter to be a maximum opening dimension equal to or less than the size of the motor gap, requires only routine skill in the art.
The Applicant further argues that there is no motivation to combine. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and has put forth that there is motivation in that a filter keeps debris from harming components downstream of it. There is motivation to use a filter, as well as, to keep the size of the debris so that the debris does not cause an issue with the motor.
The Examiner has put forth an alternative rejection including FOX (see above), which clearly discloses the plurality of filter openings have a maximum opening dimension that is equal to or less than a size of the motor gap. Utilizing the function of a filter and sizing the openings in the filter to prevent debris from passing thru it that would damage or clog the motor is both obvious based on the teachings of BEIMGRABEN, as well as, it is well-known in the art, as evidence by FOX.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/Mary A Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights