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
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 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.
Product by process limitations
Product by process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." (See MPEP § 2113)
Claim 1 recites: “… is formed…” - this limitation is subject to product by process analysis.
Claim 3 recites “an extruded tie-layer…” - this limitation is subject to product by process analysis.
Claim 4 recites “the surface roughness is imparted pre-vulcanization, during vulcanization and/or post vulcanization” - this limitation is subject to product by process analysis.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “tie-layer material” in lines 3-4 should be --tie-layer
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“forming a stator” in line 4 should be --forming the stator--;
“the tie-layer material” in lines 4-5 should be --the tie-layer
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the forming surface roughness” in line 1 should be --the forming the surface roughness--;
“comprising forming pre-vulcanization” in lines 1-2 should be --comprises forming the surface roughness pre-vulcanization--.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the forming surface roughness” in line 1 should be --the forming the surface roughness--;
“comprising forming during vulcanization” in lines 1-2 should be --comprises forming the surface roughness during vulcanization--.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informaltiies:
“the forming surface roughness” in line 1 should be --the forming the surface roughness--;
“comprising forming post vulcanization” in lines 1-2 should be --comprises forming the surface roughness post vulcanization--.
Claim 17 is objected to because “the forming surface roughness” in line 1 should be --the forming the surface roughness--.
Claim 18 is objected to because “the forming surface roughness” in line 1 should be --the forming the surface roughness--
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 1-5, 10-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akbari et al. (U.S. 2011/0116961).
Re claim 1:
Akbari discloses a fluid displacement pump (200, downhole motor - Para 35) comprising:
a rotor (202, rotor - Para 35); and
a stator (204, stator - Para 35; 208, stator tube - Para 35 (elements 204 and 208 are collectively a type of stator as shown in Fig. 2A and per description in Para 35)), wherein the stator (204, 208) comprises two materials (see Figs. 5A-5D at elements 508, 510, and 502, and Paras 39-66 - “…stator tube 502 can be fabricated from iron, steel, high speed steel, carbon steel, tungsten steel, brass, copper, and the like…”, “…a resilient layer 508 can be formed from an elastomers such as rubber, natural rubber (NR), synthetic poly isoprene (IR), butyl rubber, halogenated butyl rubber, polybutadiene (BR), nitrile rubber, nitrile butadiene rubber (NBR), hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR), carboxylated hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (XHNBR), chloroprene rubber (CR), and the like. In still another embodiment, the resilient layer 508 can be reinforced with a fiber or textile such as poly-aramid synthetic fibers such as KEVLAR(R) fiber available from E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company of Wilmington, Del…”, “…reinforcing materials 510,714 discussed herein can be a variety of materials including composites, polymers, thermosetting plastic, thermoplastics, and the like. Exemplary polymers include epoxy resins, polyimides, polyketones, polyetheretherketones (PEEK), phenolic resins, polyphenylene sulfides (PPS), and the like…”) bonded by a tie-layer material (see Figs. 5A-5D at element 504 and Para 42 “…bonding agent 504 can be a single-layer bonding agent or a multiple-layer bonding agent… including but not limited to epoxy resin, phenolic resin, polyester resin or any number of suitable alternatives….”) and wherein the tie-layer (504) is formed with surface roughness (see Figs. 4, 5A-5D and Paras 41-42 - “…in step S404…the inner surface of the stator tube 502 is … sand blasted, shot blasted…” and “…In step S406, a bonding agent 504 is applied to the interior surface of the stator tube 502…”).
Re claim 2:
Akbari discloses the fluid displacement pump (200) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the two materials comprise a thermoset and an elastomer (see Figs. 5A-5D at elements 508, 510, and 502, and Paras 39-66 - “…stator tube 502 can be fabricated from iron, steel, high speed steel, carbon steel, tungsten steel, brass, copper, and the like…”, “…a resilient layer 508 can be formed from an elastomers such as rubber, natural rubber (NR), synthetic poly isoprene (IR), butyl rubber, halogenated butyl rubber, polybutadiene (BR), nitrile rubber, nitrile butadiene rubber (NBR), hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR), carboxylated hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (XHNBR), chloroprene rubber (CR), and the like. In still another embodiment, the resilient layer 508 can be reinforced with a fiber or textile such as poly-aramid synthetic fibers such as KEVLAR(R) fiber available from E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company of Wilmington, Del…”, “…reinforcing materials 510,714 discussed herein can be a variety of materials including composites, polymers, thermosetting plastic, thermoplastics, and the like. Exemplary polymers include epoxy resins, polyimides, polyketones, polyetheretherketones (PEEK), phenolic resins, polyphenylene sulfides (PPS), and the like…”).
Re claim 3:
Akbari discloses the fluid displacement pump (200) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the tie-layer (504) comprises an extruded tie-layer (see Fig. 2A, Figs. 5A-5D, and Para 42).
Re claim 4:
Akbari discloses the fluid displacement pump (200) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the surface roughness is imparted pre-vulcanization, during vulcanization and/or post vulcanization (see Fig. 4, Paras 41-42 (limitation requiring surface roughness be imparted pre-vulcanization, during vulcanization and/or post vulcanization covers all points in time)).
Re claim 5:
Akbari discloses the fluid displacement pump (200) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the surface roughness comprises ridges and valleys (see Figs. 4, 5A-5D and Paras 41-42 - “…in step S404…the inner surface of the stator tube 502 is … sand blasted, shot blasted…” and “…In step S406, a bonding agent 504 is applied to the interior surface of the stator tube 502…” (a sand blasted or shot blasted surface necessarily comprises ridges and valleys)).
Re claim 10:
Akbari discloses the fluid displacement pump (200) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the surface roughness comprises a pattern (see Figs. 4, 5A-5D and Paras 41-42 - “…in step S404…the inner surface of the stator tube 502 is … sand blasted, shot blasted…” and “…In step S406, a bonding agent 504 is applied to the interior surface of the stator tube 502…” (a sand blasted or shot blasted surface necessarily comprises a type of pattern)).
Re claim 11:
Akbari discloses a method (Figs. 4-5D) comprising:
forming surface roughness (see Figs. 4, 5A-5D and Paras 41-42 - “…in step S404…the inner surface of the stator tube 502 is … sand blasted, shot blasted…” and “…In step S406, a bonding agent 504 is applied to the interior surface of the stator tube 502…”) in a tie-layer (see Figs. 5A-5D at element 504 and Para 42 “…bonding agent 504 can be a single-layer bonding agent or a multiple-layer bonding agent… including but not limited to epoxy resin, phenolic resin, polyester resin or any number of suitable alternatives….”) of a stator (204, stator - Para 35; 208, stator tube - Para 35 (elements 204 and 208 are collectively a type of stator as shown in Fig. 2A and per description in Para 35))(see Figs. 4-5D and Paras 41-42);
depositing material (510, reinforcing material - Para 46) on the tie-layer (504)(see Figs. 4-5D and Paras 46-47 and Paras 64-66); and
forming a stator (204, 208)(see Figs. 2A, 4, and 5A-5D), wherein the stator (204, 208) comprises two materials (see Figs. 5A-5D at elements 508, 510, and 502, and Paras 39-66 - “…stator tube 502 can be fabricated from iron, steel, high speed steel, carbon steel, tungsten steel, brass, copper, and the like…”, “…a resilient layer 508 can be formed from an elastomers such as rubber, natural rubber (NR), synthetic poly isoprene (IR), butyl rubber, halogenated butyl rubber, polybutadiene (BR), nitrile rubber, nitrile butadiene rubber (NBR), hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR), carboxylated hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (XHNBR), chloroprene rubber (CR), and the like. In still another embodiment, the resilient layer 508 can be reinforced with a fiber or textile such as poly-aramid synthetic fibers such as KEVLAR(R) fiber available from E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company of Wilmington, Del…”, “…reinforcing materials 510,714 discussed herein can be a variety of materials including composites, polymers, thermosetting plastic, thermoplastics, and the like. Exemplary polymers include epoxy resins, polyimides, polyketones, polyetheretherketones (PEEK), phenolic resins, polyphenylene sulfides (PPS), and the like…”) bonded by the tie-layer material (504)(see Figs. 2A, 4, and 5A-5D and Paras 39-48).
Re claim 12:
Akbari discloses the method (Figs. 4-5D) of claim 11 (as described above), wherein the forming surface roughness comprises forming pre-vulcanization of the tie-layer (504)(see Figs. 4, 5A-5D and Paras 41-42 (“epoxy resin, phenolic resin, polyester resin” (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize epoxy, phenolic, and polyester resin to be cured resins and not vulcanized materials and thereby the sand/shot blasted surface necessarily occurs prior to vulcanization of element 504))).
Re claim 15:
Akbari discloses the method (Figs. 4-5D) of claim 11 (as described above), wherein the surface roughness comprises peaks and valleys (see Figs. 4, 5A-5D and Paras 41-42 - “…in step S404…the inner surface of the stator tube 502 is … sand blasted, shot blasted…” and “…In step S406, a bonding agent 504 is applied to the interior surface of the stator tube 502…” (a sand blasted or shot blasted surface necessarily comprises ridges and valleys)).
Re claim 16:
Akbari discloses the method (Figs. 4-5D) of claim 11 (as described above), wherein the surface roughness comprises a pattern (see Figs. 4, 5A-5D and Paras 41-42 - “…in step S404…the inner surface of the stator tube 502 is … sand blasted, shot blasted…” and “…In step S406, a bonding agent 504 is applied to the interior surface of the stator tube 502…” (a sand blasted or shot blasted surface necessarily comprises a type of pattern)).
Re claim 17:
Akbari discloses the method (Figs. 4-5D) of claim 11 (as described above), wherein the forming surface roughness comprises increasing a surface area of the tie-layer (504)(see Figs. 4, 5A-5D and Paras 41-42 - “…in step S404…the inner surface of the stator tube 502 is … sand blasted, shot blasted…” and “…In step S406, a bonding agent 504 is applied to the interior surface of the stator tube 502…” (a sand blasted or shot blasted surface necessarily increases a surface area of element 504)).
Re claim 18:
Akbari discloses the method (Figs. 4-5D) of claim 11 (as described above), wherein forming surface roughness comprises generating an uneven thickness of the tie-layer (504)(see Figs. 4, 5A-5D and Paras 41-42 - “…in step S404…the inner surface of the stator tube 502 is … sand blasted, shot blasted…” and “…In step S406, a bonding agent 504 is applied to the interior surface of the stator tube 502…” (a sand blasted or shot blasted surface necessarily would create an uneven thickness of element 504)).
Re claim 19:
Akbari discloses the method (Figs. 4-5D) of claim 11 (as described above), comprising extruding the tie-layer (504)(see Fig. 2A, Figs. 5A-5D, and Para 42 - “…bonding agent is applied to the interior surface of the stator tube 502…”).
Re claim 20:
Akbari discloses the method (Figs. 4-5D) of claim 11 (as described above), comprising forming a fluid displacement pump (200, downhole motor - Para 35) using the stator (204, 208)(see Figs. 1-2, Paras 35-37 and Claim 20).
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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akbari et al. (U.S. 2011/0116961) in view of Delpassand et al. (U.S. 2006/0182644).
Re claim 6:
Akbari discloses the fluid displacement pump (200) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the surface roughness comprises features having a length scale bonding agent 504 is applied to the interior surface of the stator tube 502…” (a sand blasted or shot blasted surface necessarily would create features having a length scale)).
Akbari fails to disclose features having a length scale greater than 0.01 mm.
Delpassand discloses a fluid pump (100, progressing cavity power section - Para 24 (see Figs. 1-2 and also Para 3 - “…rotor may be coupled, for example, through a universal connection and an output shaft to a drill bit assembly. Alternatively, in pump applications, the rotor may be driven by, for example, electric power, in which case fluid may be caused to flow through the progressing cavities….”)) wherein a stator (120, stator section - Para 26) has a length in the range from about 15 to about 60 cm (Para 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the stator of Akbari after that of Delpassand, thereby making the stator of Akbari have a length from about 15 to about 60 cm in the way taught by Delpassand for the advantage of a stator which is more simple and less expensive to manufacture (Delpassand; see Paras 5, and 9-10 - “…increasing stator length tends to increase fabrica tion complexity and may also tend to increase the distance between the drill bit and downhole logging sensors… The present invention addresses one or more of the above-described drawbacks of prior art Moineau style motors and/or pumps… embodiments of the present invention advantageously provide several technical advantages. For example, exemplary embodiments of this invention include a rigid stator having high torque output. Moreover, exem plary embodiments of this invention are relatively simple and inexpensive to manufacture as compared to prior art rigid stators….”). By making a length of the staor of Akbari be between 15 and 60cm as taught by Delpassand, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the surface roughness Of Akbari would necessarily comprises features having a length scale greater than 0.01 mm as the inner surface of element 502 which is sand blasted or shot blasted is along the length of element 208 per views of Fig. 2A and 5A-5D.
Re claim 7:
Akbari discloses the fluid displacement pump (200) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the surface roughness comprises features having a length scale
Akbari fails to disclose features having a length scale greater than 0.1 mm.
Delpassand discloses a fluid pump (100, progressing cavity power section - Para 24 (see Figs. 1-2 and also Para 3 - “…rotor may be coupled, for example, through a universal connection and an output shaft to a drill bit assembly. Alternatively, in pump applications, the rotor may be driven by, for example, electric power, in which case fluid may be caused to flow through the progressing cavities….”)) wherein a stator (120, stator section - Para 26) has a length in the range from about 15 to about 60 cm (Para 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the stator of Akbari after that of Delpassand, thereby making the stator of Akbari have a length from about 15 to about 60 cm in the way taught by Delpassand for the advantage of a stator which is more simple and less expensive to manufacture (Delpassand; see Paras 5, and 9-10 - “…increasing stator length tends to increase fabrica tion complexity and may also tend to increase the distance between the drill bit and downhole logging sensors… The present invention addresses one or more of the above-described drawbacks of prior art Moineau style motors and/or pumps… embodiments of the present invention advantageously provide several technical advantages. For example, exemplary embodiments of this invention include a rigid stator having high torque output. Moreover, exem plary embodiments of this invention are relatively simple and inexpensive to manufacture as compared to prior art rigid stators….”). By making a length of the staor of Akbari be between 15 and 60cm as taught by Delpassand, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the surface roughness Of Akbari would necessarily comprises features having a length scale greater than 0.1 mm as the inner surface of element 502 which is sand blasted or shot blasted is along the length of element 208 per views of Fig. 2A and 5A-5D.
Re claim 8:
Akbari discloses the fluid displacement pump (200) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the surface roughness comprises features having a length scale bonding agent 504 is applied to the interior surface of the stator tube 502…” (a sand blasted or shot blasted surface necessarily would create features having a length scale)).
Akbari fails to disclose features having a length scale greater than 0.5 mm.
Delpassand discloses a fluid pump (100, progressing cavity power section - Para 24 (see Figs. 1-2 and also Para 3 - “…rotor may be coupled, for example, through a universal connection and an output shaft to a drill bit assembly. Alternatively, in pump applications, the rotor may be driven by, for example, electric power, in which case fluid may be caused to flow through the progressing cavities….”)) wherein a stator (120, stator section - Para 26) has a length in the range from about 15 to about 60 cm (Para 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the stator of Akbari after that of Delpassand, thereby making the stator of Akbari have a length from about 15 to about 60 cm in the way taught by Delpassand for the advantage of a stator which is more simple and less expensive to manufacture (Delpassand; see Paras 5, and 9-10 - “…increasing stator length tends to increase fabrica tion complexity and may also tend to increase the distance between the drill bit and downhole logging sensors… The present invention addresses one or more of the above-described drawbacks of prior art Moineau style motors and/or pumps… embodiments of the present invention advantageously provide several technical advantages. For example, exemplary embodiments of this invention include a rigid stator having high torque output. Moreover, exem plary embodiments of this invention are relatively simple and inexpensive to manufacture as compared to prior art rigid stators….”). By making a length of the staor of Akbari be between 15 and 60cm as taught by Delpassand, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the surface roughness Of Akbari would necessarily comprises features having a length scale greater than 0.5 mm as the inner surface of element 502 which is sand blasted or shot blasted is along the length of element 208 per views of Fig. 2A and 5A-5D.
Re claim 9:
Akbari discloses the fluid displacement pump (200) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the surface roughness comprises features having a length scale
Akbari fails to disclose features having a length scale greater than 1 mm.
Delpassand discloses a fluid pump (100, progressing cavity power section - Para 24 (see Figs. 1-2 and also Para 3 - “…rotor may be coupled, for example, through a universal connection and an output shaft to a drill bit assembly. Alternatively, in pump applications, the rotor may be driven by, for example, electric power, in which case fluid may be caused to flow through the progressing cavities….”)) wherein a stator (120, stator section - Para 26) has a length in the range from about 15 to about 60 cm (Para 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the stator of Akbari after that of Delpassand, thereby making the stator of Akbari have a length from about 15 to about 60 cm in the way taught by Delpassand for the advantage of a stator which is more simple and less expensive to manufacture (Delpassand; see Paras 5, and 9-10 - “…increasing stator length tends to increase fabrica tion complexity and may also tend to increase the distance between the drill bit and downhole logging sensors… The present invention addresses one or more of the above-described drawbacks of prior art Moineau style motors and/or pumps… embodiments of the present invention advantageously provide several technical advantages. For example, exemplary embodiments of this invention include a rigid stator having high torque output. Moreover, exem plary embodiments of this invention are relatively simple and inexpensive to manufacture as compared to prior art rigid stators….”). By making a length of the staor of Akbari be between 15 and 60cm as taught by Delpassand, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the surface roughness Of Akbari would necessarily comprises features having a length scale greater than 1 mm as the inner surface of element 502 which is sand blasted or shot blasted is along the length of element 208 per views of Fig. 2A and 5A-5D.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 13-14 would be allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the forming surface roughness comprises forming during vulcanization of the tie-layer” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 13.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the forming surface roughness comprises forming post vulcanization of the tie-layer” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 14.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by one or more references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 6/19/26
Prosecution Insights