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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following feature(s) must be shown or canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“at least one bracket” in claim 12; and “at least one clamp” in claim 13.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 3 (fig. 3C) in the reply filed on February 17, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant reserves the right to seek rejoinder as applicable pursuant to MPEP 821.04”. Examiner acknowledges the remark made with respect to the rejoinder. However, this is not found persuasive because currently, no claims are found to be generic.
Applicant further states that “claims 7-14 read on the elected species”. However, upon further consideration, the recited feature “wherein the at least one cut-out area is defined on at least one of the male splines of the first drive shaft” in claim 8 reads on the non-elected species (species 2, figs. 3A-3B).
Thus, claims 1 – 6, 8 and 15 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 9 – 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, line 7: “the cut-out area” should read --the at least one cut-out area--.
Claim 7, lines 8-9: “the shouldered aperture” should read --the at least one shouldered aperture--.
Claim 9, line 2: “male splines” should read --the male splines--.
Claims 9 – 14 are objected to for being dependent on claim 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7, 9 – 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mack et al. (US 2020/0072296 – herein after Mack).
In reference to claim 7, Mack discloses an electric submersible pump (ESP) assembly, comprising (see fig. 3A or 4A):
a first ESP component (see ¶26) having a first drive shaft (132) defining a plurality of male splines (150) and defining at least one cut-out area (156);
a second ESP component (see ¶26) having a second drive shaft (134);
a coupling shell (130) defining a first plurality of female splines (148) configured to mate with the male splines (150) of the first drive shaft and at least one shouldered aperture (154; “shouldered aperture” = stepped opening) configured to align with the at least one cut-out area (156) of the first drive shaft; and
at least one removable lug having a pin (set screw 158 + split ring 152) that is (as evident from fig. 3A) configured to extend through the at least one shouldered aperture (154) in the coupling shell (130) to engage with the at least one cut-out area (156) of the first drive shaft (132).
In reference to claim 9, Mack discloses the ESP assembly, wherein (as evident from fig. 3A or fig. 4A) the at least one cut-out area (156) is defined on an area of a surface of the first drive shaft (156) that does not feature the male splines (150).
In reference to claim 10, Mack discloses the ESP assembly, wherein a housing (casing) of the first ESP component (component being upper shaft 132, see fig. 3A) or a housing (casing) of the second ESP component (component being lower shaft 134, see fig. 3A) defines an at least one access port (top or bottom opening) for accessing the at least one removable lug (set screw 158 + split ring 152) [see figs. 2-3 and ¶25-26: “coupling 130” is between two shafts 132, 134; these shafts have casing surrounding it; the casing has “top or bottom” opening through which the asserted lug is accessible].
In reference to claim 11, Mack discloses the ESP assembly, wherein (as evident from fig. 3A or fig. 4A) the at least one removable lug (158+152) is secured to the coupling shell (130) using at least one threaded bolt or at least one threaded screw (the asserted lug has threaded screw/bolt 158 (setscrew); the asserted lug is coupled/secured to the asserted coupling shell using threaded screw/bolt 158).
In reference to claim 14, Mack discloses the ESP assembly, wherein (as evident from fig. 4A) the second drive shaft (134) defines at least one cut-out area (156) and the coupling shell (130) defines at least one shouldered aperture (154) configured to align with the at least one cut-out area (156) defined by the second drive shaft (134).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mack in view of Wakabayashi, Katsuhiko (US 2007/0269286 – herein after Wakabayashi).
In reference to claim 12, Mack teaches the ESP assembly, wherein (as evident from fig. 3A or fig. 4A) the at least one removable lug (158+152) is secured to the coupling shell (130).
Mack remains silent on the ESP assembly, wherein the at least one removable lug is secured to the coupling shell using at least one bracket (“bracket” = a component used to support or secure another part in a fixed position).
However, Wakabayashi teaches a shaft-fixing device that has lock bolt (1) and setscrew (2), thus teaching (see figs. 1-3) the at least one removable lug (setscrew 2) secured to the coupling shell (F) using at least one lock bolt (1). This lock bolt effectively acts as a bracket, securing the primary lug (setscrew) against any movement (see ¶26).
Mack’s asserted at least one removable lug has one of the components in the form of setscrew (component 158). A known problem in ESP assemblies is high-frequency vibration. This setscrew is susceptible to become loose in view of this vibration caused by high-speed rotary motion of the rotating components (such as shafts in this case) [this problem is further discussed by Wakabayashi in ¶3]. Wakabayashi addresses this problem by provision of a lock bolt (1) on the setscrew (2). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the set-screw securing mechanism in the ESP assembly of Mack by supplementing Mack’s setscrew with anti-loosening component (the secondary lock bolt acting as a bracket) as taught by Wakabayashi to ensure the removable lug remains secured over long periods of operation.
In reference to claim 13, Mack teaches the ESP assembly, wherein (as evident from fig. 3A or fig. 4A) the at least one removable lug (158+152) is secured to the coupling shell (130).
Mack remains silent on the ESP assembly, wherein (as evident from fig. 3A or fig. 4A) the at least one removable lug is secured to the coupling shell using at least one clamp (“clamp” = a component used to support or secure another part in a fixed position).
However, Wakabayashi teaches a shaft-fixing device that has lock bolt (1) and setscrew (2), thus teaching (see figs. 1-3) the at least one removable lug (setscrew 2) secured to the coupling shell (F) using at least one lock bolt (1). This lock bolt effectively acts as a clamp, securing the primary lug (setscrew) against any movement (see ¶26).
Mack’s asserted at least one removable lug has one of the components in the form of setscrew (component 158). A known problem in ESP assemblies is high-frequency vibration. This setscrew is susceptible to become loose in view of this vibration caused by high-speed rotary motion of the rotating components (such as shafts in this case) [this problem is further discussed by Wakabayashi in ¶3]. Wakabayashi addresses this problem by provision of a lock bolt (1) on the setscrew (2). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the set-screw securing mechanism in the ESP assembly of Mack by supplementing Mack’s setscrew with anti-loosening component (the secondary lock bolt acting as a clamp) as taught by Wakabayashi to ensure the removable lug remains secured over long periods of operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Proctor teaches a similar ESP assembly wherein two shafts are coupled using a coupling shell having at least one removable lug.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM.
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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746