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.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-14 in the reply filed on September 14,2026 is acknowledged. The Examiner does agree with the applicant, and claim 2 is part of Group I, and is included in the election of Group I. Claims 15-17 and 19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 15-17 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 14, 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 4, line 2 in ¶0013 states “Figure 2A”, however, there is no Figure 2A. The Examiner believe that this should be “Figure 2”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 12 recite “pins disposed in aligning grooves of the base shaft and the second body to prevent relative rotation between the head shaft and the first body”, which is indefinite since the claim limitation does not make sense. How can pins in the base shaft and second body prevent relative rotation between the head shaft and the first body? The Examiner believes that the limitation should be for claim 5 “pins disposed in aligning grooves of the base shaft and the second body to prevent relative rotation between the [[base shaft and the [[second body”. A similar amendment should be made to claim 12, however, see the further 112(b) rejection below.
Claims 6 and 13 recite “the first body comprises splines that extend into grooves formed in the first body to prevent relative rotation between the head/protector shaft and the first body”. Claims 7 and 14 recite “the second body comprises splines that extend into grooves formed in the second body to prevent relative rotation between the middle shaft and the second body”. Both of these limitations are indefinite since how can splines in the first body extend into grooves formed in the first body and how can the second body comprise splines that extend into grooves formed in the second body? Both engaging features are claimed to be in the same component. The Examiner recommends changing the claims to: “the first body comprises splines that extend into grooves formed in the head shaft to prevent relative rotation between the head/protector shaft and the first body” (claim 6), “the first body comprises splines that extend into grooves formed in the protector shaft to prevent relative rotation between the head/protector shaft and the first body” (claim 13, see discussion below with regards to the “head shaft” in independent claim 8 is cited as the protector shaft), and “the second body comprises splines that extend into grooves formed in the middle shaft to prevent relative rotation between the middle shaft and the second body” (claims 7 and 14).
Claims 8 and 11-13 recite limitations directed to “the head shaft” (claims 8 and 11-13) and “the base shaft” (claim 12). Claims 11-13 depend on claim 8, where the “protector shaft extending through the head”, and “the motor shaft extending through the base”. The Examiner believes that claims 8 and 11-13 are trying to use the terminology in claim 1, however, switched the terminology in claim 8. Claims 8 and 11-13 should change the terminology of “the head shaft” to “the protector shaft”, since the protector shaft if the shaft that is extending through the head. Claim 12 should change “the base shaft” to “the motor shaft”. In addition, claim 12 should be amended due to the inconsistencies discussed above with regards to claims 5 and 12. Claim 12 should recite “pins disposed in aligning grooves of the [[motor shaft and the second body to prevent relative rotation between the [[motor shaft and the [[second body”.
Claims 9 and 11-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 8.
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, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAMACHO (WIPO Publication WO 2014/179160 A1) in view of ZHANG (Chinese Patent Publication CN 112112906 A, a machine translation is provided with the foreign reference in the PTO-892 and is utilized in the rejection below), as understood based on the 112(b) rejections above. The Examiner would like to note that claims 8 and 11-13 that the “head shaft” and the “protector shaft” are construed to be the same element, and “the base shaft” and the “motor shaft” are construed to be the same element.
Regarding claim 1, CAMACHO discloses: a displacement unit (see Figures 2 and 3) comprising:
a body (see Figures 2 and 3 that shows a body of an ESP – electrical submersible pump) comprising a head (see Figures 2 and 3 and Marked up Figure 3, where the head is located on the protector (370)) and a base (see Figures 2 and 3 and Marked up Figure 3, where the base is located on the motor (350));
a head shaft (see Marked up Figure 3, where the head shaft is the protector shaft) extending through the head of the body (see Marked up Figure 3);
a base shaft (see Figures 2 and 3 and Marked up Figure 3, where the base shaft is the motor shaft) extending through the base of the body (see Figures 2 and 3 and Marked up Figure 3)
a middle shaft (the middle shaft is on the pump (320) that connects to the head/protector shaft, see Marked up Figure 3) coupled to the head shaft via a first flexible coupling (see Figures 2 and 3 and Marked up Figure 3 and ¶0043, where the First flexible coupling is between Pump (320) and protector (370)) and coupled to the base shaft via a second flexible coupling (see Figures 2 and 3 and Marked up Figure 3 and ¶0043, where the base shaft and the motor shaft are connected via a second coupling); and
radial bearings (930) (see ¶0053, ¶0077, ¶0084, ¶00112, claim 20) disposed within body to support at least one of the head shaft, the middle shaft, or the base shaft (see ¶0053, ¶0077, ¶0084, ¶00112, claim 20).
CAMACHO fails to specifically disclose that the first flexible coupling comprises: a first body coupled to the head shaft; a second body coupled to the middle shaft and to the first body; and a lamination pack disposed between the first body and the second body that allows for angular displacement between the head shaft and the middle shaft while transferring torque between the head shaft and the middle shaft.
Regarding claim 1, ZHANG teaches: the first flexible coupling (see Abstract) comprises:
a first body (8) coupled to the head shaft (1) (see Figure 1);
a second body (25) (see Marked up Figure 1 of ZHANG, and Figure 3) coupled to the middle shaft (7) and to the first body (see Figure 1); and
a lamination pack (10) disposed between the first body and the second body (see Figure 1) that allows for angular displacement between the head shaft and the middle shaft while transferring torque between the head shaft and the middle shaft (see Figures 1 and 3, where the limitation directed to “that allows for angular displacement between the head shaft and the middle shaft while transferring torque between the head shaft and the middle shaft” 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, ZHANG is capable of performing the claimed function, since it has lamination connection that allows for the transmission of torque and angular displacement (see Abstract)).
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 first flexible coupling comprises: a first body coupled to the head shaft; a second body coupled to the middle shaft and to the first body; and a lamination pack disposed between the first body and the second body that allows for angular displacement between the head shaft and the middle shaft while transferring torque between the head shaft and the middle shaft in the displacement unit of CAMACHO, in order to provide a flexible coupling that allows for transmission of torque and allow for axial and angle misalignment and allowing for a more stable operation (see Abstract and top of Page 3 of ZHANG before the Description of Pictures).
PNG
media_image1.png
835
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
561
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 9, CAMACHO discloses: the base comprises a flange (see Marked up Figure 3 of CAMACHO) eccentrically positioned relative to the base (see Marked up Figure 3 of CAMACHO).
Regarding claim 8, CAMACHO discloses: an electric submersible pump (“ESP”) comprising;
a motor (350) comprising a motor shaft (see Figures 2 and 3 and Marked up Figure 3, where the base shaft is the motor shaft); and
a protector (370) comprising a protector shaft (see Marked up Figure 3, where the head shaft is the protector shaft);
a displacement unit (see Figures 2 and 3, and Marked up Figure 3 of CAMACHO that discloses a displacement unit that includes a coupling, see ¶0043) operably coupling the motor to the protector (see Figures 2 and 3, and Marked up Figure 3 of CAMACHO and ¶0043) and comprising:
a body comprising a head (see Marked up Figure 3 of CAMACHO) and a base (see Marked up Figure 3 of CAMACHO), the protector shaft (see Figures 2 and 3, and Marked up Figure 3 of CAMACHO) extending through the head of the body and the motor shaft (see Figures 2 and 3, and Marked up Figure 3 of CAMACHO) extending through the base of the body (see Figures 2 and 3, and Marked up Figure 3 of CAMACHO);
a middle shaft (see Marked up Figure 3 of CAMACHO) coupled to the protector shaft via a first flexible coupling (see Marked up Figure 3 of CAMACHO, ¶0043) and coupled to the motor shaft via a second flexible coupling (see Marked up Figure 3 of CAMACHO, ¶0043),
radial bearings radial bearings (930) (see ¶0053, ¶0077, ¶0084, ¶00112, claim 20) disposed within body to support at least one of the motor shaft, the middle shaft, or the protector shaft (see ¶0053, ¶0077, ¶0084, ¶00112, claim 20).
CAMACHO fails to disclose the first flexible coupling comprises: a first body coupled to the head/ protector shaft; a second body coupled to the middle shaft and to the first body; and a lamination pack disposed between the first body and the second body that allows for angular displacement between the head/ protector shaft and the middle shaft while transferring torque between the head/ protector shaft and the middle shaft.
Regarding claim 8, ZHANG teaches: the first flexible coupling (see Abstract) comprises:
a first body (8) coupled to the head/ protector shaft (1) (see Figure 1);
a second body (25) (see Marked up Figure 1 of ZHANG, and Figure 3) coupled to the middle shaft (7) and to the first body (see Figure 1); and
a lamination pack (10) disposed between the first body and the second body (see Figure 1) that allows for angular displacement between the head/ protector shaft and the middle shaft while transferring torque between the head/ protector shaft and the middle shaft (see Figures 1 and 3, where the limitation directed to “that allows for angular displacement between the head/ protector shaft and the middle shaft while transferring torque between the head/ protector shaft and the middle shaft” 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, ZHANG is capable of performing the claimed function, since it has lamination connection that allows for the transmission of torque and angular displacement (see Abstract)).
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 first flexible coupling comprises: a first body coupled to the head/ protector shaft; a second body coupled to the middle shaft and to the first body; and a lamination pack disposed between the first body and the second body that allows for angular displacement between the head/ protector shaft and the middle shaft while transferring torque between the head/ protector shaft and the middle shaft in the displacement unit of CAMACHO, in order to provide a flexible coupling that allows for transmission of torque and allow for axial and angle misalignment and allowing for a more stable operation (see Abstract and top of Page 3 of ZHANG before the Description of Pictures).
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified displacement unit or electric submersible pump of CAMACHO/ ZHANG as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of WILLIAMS (U.S. Patent 3,654,775), as currently understood based on the 112(b) rejections above.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, the modified displacement unit or electric submersible pump of CAMACHO/ ZHANG discloses the claimed invention, where CAMACHO shows in Figure 3 an interface between the shafts appears to be a spline and groove configuration, however, fails to specifically disclose pins disposed in aligning grooves of the head/protector shaft and the first body to prevent relative rotation between the head/protector shaft and the first body.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, WILLIAMS teaches: pins (19) disposed in aligning grooves (see Figures 3 and 4) of the shaft (10, 11) and the first body (16) to prevent relative rotation between the shaft and the first body (see Figures 3 and 4) (the limitation directed to “to prevent relative rotation between the shaft and the first body” 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, WILLIAMS is capable of performing the claimed function since the pins are used to connect the shaft and allow the two components to be connected to one another, so that they can rotate together).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have pins disposed in aligning grooves of the head/protector shaft and the first body to prevent relative rotation between the head/protector shaft and the first body in the modified displacement unit or electric submersible pump of CAMACHO/ ZHANG, in order to connect the head/protector shaft and the first body together. Furthermore, utilizing pins and grooves is well known in the art as evidence by WILLIAMS. Moreover, the selection of any number of pins (where WILLIAMS discloses one pin) would be commensurate with the desired effect and a design choice with predictable results, where additional pins would allow for additional surface area and positive connection between the components).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, the modified displacement unit or electric submersible pump of CAMACHO/ ZHANG discloses the claimed invention, however, fails to disclose pins disposed in aligning grooves of the base/motor shaft and the second body to prevent relative rotation between the
Regarding claims 5 and 12, WILLIAMS teaches: pins (19) disposed in aligning grooves (see Figures 3 and 4) of the shaft (10, 11) and the first/second body (16) to prevent relative rotation between the shaft and the first/second body (see Figures 3 and 4) (the limitation directed to “to prevent relative rotation between the shaft and the first/second body” 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, WILLIAMS is capable of performing the claimed function since the pins are used to connect the shaft and allow the two components to be connected to one another, so that they can rotate together).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have pins disposed in aligning grooves of the base/motor shaft and the second body to prevent relative rotation between the ZHANG, in order to connect the base/motor shaft and the second body together. Furthermore, utilizing pins and grooves is well known in the art as evidence by WILLIAMS. Moreover, the selection of any number of pins (where WILLIAMS discloses one pin) would be commensurate with the desired effect and a design choice with predictable results, where additional pins would allow for additional surface area and positive connection between the components).
Claims 6-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified displacement unit or electric submersible pump of CAMACHO/ ZHANG as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of BARRUS (U.S. Patent 5,501,580), as currently understood based on the 112(b) rejections above.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the modified displacement unit or electric submersible pump of CAMACHO/ ZHANG discloses the claimed invention, however, fails to specifically disclose the first body comprises splines that extend into grooves formed in the first body to prevent relative rotation between the head/protector shaft and the first body.
The Examiner would like to note that CAMACHO does show splines and grooves in Figure 3, however, these are not labeled.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, BARRUS teaches: the first body comprises splines (47) that extend into grooves (59) formed in the first body to prevent relative rotation between the head/protector shaft and the first body (Column 2, lines 36-49, where the limitation directed to “to prevent relative rotation between the head/protector shaft and the first body” 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, BARRUS is capable of performing the claimed function, since the spline and groove connection is utilized to couple the two components together).
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 first body comprises splines that extend into grooves formed in the first body to prevent relative rotation between the head/protector shaft and the first body in the modified displacement unit or electric submersible pump of CAMACHO/ ZHANG, in order to positively connect the head/protector shaft and the first body together in order to transmit the torque between the components).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the modified displacement unit or electric submersible pump of CAMACHO/ ZHANG discloses the claimed invention, where CAMACHO does show splines and grooves in Figure 3, however, these are not labeled. The modified displacement unit or electric submersible pump of CAMACHO/ ZHANG fails to disclose the second body comprises splines that extend into grooves formed in the second body to prevent relative rotation between the middle shaft and the second body.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, BARRUS teaches: the second body comprises splines (45) that extend into grooves formed in the second body (41, 49) to prevent relative rotation between the middle shaft and the second body (Column 2, lines 36-49, where the limitation directed to “to prevent relative rotation between the middle shaft and the second body” 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, BARRUS is capable of performing the claimed function, since the spline and groove connection is utilized to couple the two components together).
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 second body comprises splines that extend into grooves formed in the second body to prevent relative rotation between the middle shaft and the second body in the modified displacement unit or electric submersible pump of CAMACHO/ ZHANG, in order to positively connect the middle shaft and the second body together in order to transmit the torque between the components).
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
COLLINS (U.S. Patent 9,260,924 B2) discloses a flexible joint connection (see Figures 2, 6, and 8) that is used in a wellbore (104).
PARMETER (U.S. Patent 9,976,602 B2) discloses a torque transmitting coupling (see Figure 4), that includes “laminations” (340) and shaft to spline interfaces (see Figure 4) used in a downhole well (105) (see Figure 1).
HANNIBAL (U.S. Patent 4,194,372) discloses a flexible drive coupling using laminations (see Abstract and Figures 1-4).
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