DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a filed document or remarks of a filed response (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is Christopher.Legendre@uspto.gov.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Singapore on 15 July 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10202402077Y application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “404” (Figure 4B).
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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, line 1, “a” should be changed to --the-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice - see claim 10, 2nd line from bottom).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action.
There are no limitations deemed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 2, 3, and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing the written description requirement.
In claim 2, the limitation recited as “a gap at a second end of the pump shaft, wherein the gap is configured to allow at least one of the plurality of impellers to float when one or more stage deflections exceed a shaft lift” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2163 (I)(A), issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In the instant case, the originally filed disclosure depicts the claimed “gap” / gap 504 in Figure 5C - however, the gap 504 is disposed in a distal end of the shaft such that it is remote from all of the impellers 506 and/or such that a diffuser 102 interposes the gap 504 and the closest impeller 506 and, thus, is incapable of cooperating with any of the impellers 506 - i.e., the originally filed disclosure does not sufficiently describe how “the gap is configured to allow at least one of the plurality of impellers to float when one or more stage deflections exceed a shaft lift”. Due to similar issues/instances (i.e., “a clearance… at a top end of the pump shaft configured to allow limited impeller movement during stage deflection” - claim 10; “a clearance… at the other end of the pump shaft to allow for impeller float during deflection” - claim 18), this rejection also applies to claims 10, 11, 13, 18, and 19. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 12, 14-17, and 20.
In claim 3, the limitation recited as “a spring at a second end of the pump shaft, wherein the spring is configured to secure the plurality of impellers” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2163 (I)(A), issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In the instant case, the originally filed disclosure depicts the claimed “spring” / spring 404 in Figure 4B - however, the spring 404 is disposed in a distal end of the shaft such that it is remote from all of the impellers 104 and/or such that a diffuser 102 interposes the spring 404 and the closest impeller 104 and, thus, is incapable of cooperating with any of the impellers 404 - i.e., the originally filed disclosure does not sufficiently describe how “the spring is configured to secure the plurality of impellers”. Due to similar instances (i.e., “[a] spring at a top end of the pump shaft configured to allow limited impeller movement during stage deflection” - claim 10; “[a] spring… at the other end of the pump shaft to allow for impeller float during deflection” - claim 18), this rejection also applies to claims 10, 12, and 18. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 11, 13-17, 19, and 20.
In claim 9, the limitation recited as “the bottom of the pump shaft or an impeller hub comprises a two-piece ring held in place with a spacer and a retaining ring” (emphasis added) was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2163 (I)(A), issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In the instant case, the originally filed disclosure depicts (see Figures 6 7) the two-piece ring 606, the spacer 604, and the retaining ring 602 as separate/distinct from an impeller hub and/or far removed from an end of the shaft and, thus, does not sufficiently describe how the instant claimed structural relationships are realized.
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.
Claims 2, 7, 9-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 2, the limitation recited as “one or more stage deflections” renders the claim indefinite since there is no antecedent basis for “stage” and/or since it is unclear what it is intended to represent (note: since the “diffusers” are fixed, there can be no “stage deflection” - only deflection of the “impellers” is possible). Due to a similar issue/instance (i.e., “stage deflection”), this rejection also applies to claim 10. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 11-17.
In claim 7, the limitation recited as “a deflection exceeds a shaft lift” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what “deflection” is intended to describe - i.e., a deflection of what element/component? To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests adding --of at least one of the impellers-- after “deflection”. Due to an identical instance/issue, this rejection also applies to claim 15.
In claim 7, the limitation recited as “the stages” / “the stages where the deflection” renders the claim indefinite since there is no antecedent basis for “stage” (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). Furthermore, there can be no deflection of a “stage” since any such stage would include a “diffuser”, which is fixed. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing “stages” to --the at least one of the impellers-- (note: see the preceding rejection/suggestion). Due to a similar instance/issue, this rejection also applies to claim 15.
In claim 9, the limitation recited as “the bottom of the pump shaft or an impeller hub comprises a two-piece ring held in place with a spacer and a retaining ring” (emphasis added) renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.03, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In the instant case, contrary to the instant limitations, the originally filed disclosure depicts (see Figures 6 7) the two-piece ring 606, the spacer 604, and the retaining ring 602 as separate/distinct from an impeller hub and/or far removed from an end of the shaft.
In claim 11, the limitation recited as “a gap at a second end of the pump shaft” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to the antecedent limitation “a clearance… at a top end of the pump shaft” or introducing a new limitation (note: “gap” is a synonym of “clearance”; par. [0046] states “gap 704 (e.g., clearance gap)”). Due to similar issues/instances, this rejection also applies to claims 13 and 19.
In claim 11, the limitation recited as “a second end of the pump shaft” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to the antecedent limitation “a top end of the pump shaft” or introducing a new limitation
In claim 12, the limitation recited as “a spring at a second of the pump shaft” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to the antecedent limitation “a spring at a top end of the pump shaft” or introducing a new limitation
In claim 12, the limitation recited as “a second of the pump shaft” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to the antecedent limitation “a top end of the pump shaft” or introducing a new limitation
In claim 20, the limitation recited as “a deflection exceeds a shaft lift” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what “deflection” is intended to describe - i.e., a deflection of what element/component? To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests adding --one of the impellers-- after “deflection”.
In claim 20, the limitation recited as “only one stage” renders the claim indefinite since “stage” lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing “only one stage” to --only the one of the impellers-- (note: see preceding rejection/suggestion).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 11,242,856 - hereafter referred to as Smith).
In reference to claim 1
Smith discloses:
A pump for pumping fluid, the pump comprising:
a plurality of impellers (63) stacked on top of each other via a pump shaft (29);
a diffuser (49) corresponding to each impeller;
a body (23) housing the plurality of impellers, each diffuser corresponding to each impeller, and the pump shaft; and
a protector thrust bearing (75) at a first end (i.e., bottom end) of the pump shaft.
In reference to claim 2 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Smith discloses:
The pump of claim 1, further comprising a gap (i.e., a circumferential-radial gap/clearance between the splines at splined end 35 - Figure 2A) at a second end (35) of the pump shaft (29), wherein the gap is configured to allow at least one of the plurality of impellers (63) to float when one or more stage deflections exceed a shaft lift.
In reference to claim 3
Smith discloses:
The pump of claim 1, further comprising a spring (77) at a second end (i.e., top end) of the pump shaft (29), wherein the spring is configured to secure (see col.5:ll.19-27) the plurality of impellers (63).
In reference to claim 4
Smith discloses:
The pump of claim 1, wherein the plurality of impellers (63) are stacked hub-to-hub (see col.4:ll.47-54,62-65).
In reference to claim 5
Smith discloses:
The pump of claim 1, wherein the plurality of impellers (63) are configured to move along the shaft (29) in an upward direction (see col.4:ll.65-67 and col.5:ll.24-25).
In reference to claim 6
Smith discloses:
The pump of claim 1, wherein a downthrust generated by the plurality of impellers (63) is configured to be transferred (see col.5:ll.4-6) to the protector thrust bearing (75) through the shaft (29).
In reference to claim 7 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Smith discloses:
The pump of claim 1, wherein the pump is configured to limit a transfer of a thrust load such that when a deflection (i.e., a deflection of an impeller) exceeds a shaft lift, the thrust load from the stages where the deflection exceeds the shaft lift stage is transferred to an adjacent diffuser (note: each impeller 63 engages with the adjacent diffuser 49 at balance ring 69 and, thus, is capable of transferring thrust load thereto - see col.4:ll.40-43).
In reference to claim 8 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Smith discloses:
The pump of claim 1, wherein the pump is part of an electric submersible pump (ESP) system (see col.3:ll.16-18).
In reference to claim 10 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Smith discloses:
An electrical submersible pump (ESP), the ESP comprising:
a plurality of impellers (63);
a plurality of diffusers (49) corresponding to each of the plurality of impellers;
a pump shaft (29) connecting the plurality of impellers;
a protector thrust bearing (75) at a bottom end of the pump shaft; and
a clearance (i.e., the axially-extending gap, which is occupied by spring 77, between hub 73 and ring 29) or spring (77) at a top end of the pump shaft configured to allow limited impeller movement (see col.5:ll.19-27) during stage deflection in order to reduce thrust transfer.
In reference to claim 11 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Smith discloses:
The ESP of claim 10, further comprising a gap (i.e., the axially-extending gap, which is occupied by spring 77, between hub 73 and ring 29) at a second end (i.e., top end) of the pump shaft (29), wherein the gap is configured to allow at least one of the plurality of impellers (63) to float when one or more stage deflections exceed a shaft lift.
In reference to claim 12 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Smith discloses:
The ESP of claim 10, further comprising a spring (77) at a second end (i.e., top end) of the pump shaft (29), wherein the spring is configured to secure the plurality of impellers (63).
In reference to claim 13 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Smith discloses:
The ESP of claim 10, wherein the plurality of impellers (63) is configured to float at a top end of the pump shaft (29) via a gap (i.e., the axially-extending gap, which is occupied by spring 77, between hub 73 and ring 29).
In reference to claim 14
Smith discloses:
The ESP of claim 10, wherein a downthrust generated by one or more of the plurality of impellers (63) is configured to be transferred to the protector thrust bearing (75) through the shaft (29).
In reference to claim 15 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Smith discloses:
The ESP of claim 10, wherein the ESP is configured to limit a transfer of a thrust load such that when a deflection (i.e., a deflection of an impeller) exceeds a shaft lift, the thrust load from the stages where the deflection exceeds the shaft lift stage is transferred to an adjacent diffuser (note: each impeller 63 engages with the adjacent diffuser 49 at balance ring 69 and, thus, is capable of transferring thrust load thereto - see col.4:ll.40-43).
In reference to claim 18
Smith discloses:
A method of reducing wear in a pump, the method comprising:
stacking a plurality of impellers (63) on a pump shaft (29);
providing a diffuser (49) corresponding to each impeller;
housing the plurality of impellers, each corresponding diffuser, and the pump shaft in a body (23);
providing a protector thrust bearing (75) at one end of the pump shaft; and
providing a clearance (i.e., the axially-extending gap, which is occupied by spring 77, between hub 73 and ring 29) or spring (77) at the other end of the pump shaft to allow for impeller float (see col.5:ll.19-27) during deflection.
In reference to claim 19 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Smith discloses:
The method of claim 18, further comprising allowing one or more of the plurality of impellers (63) to float (see col.4:ll.65-67 and col.5:ll.24-25), via a gap (i.e., the axially-extending gap, which is occupied by spring 77, between hub 73 and ring 29) when one or more stage deflections exceed a shaft lift.
In reference to claim 20 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Smith discloses:
The method of claim 18, further comprising limiting a transfer of a thrust load such that when a deflection (i.e., a deflection of an impeller) exceeds a shaft lift, the thrust load from only one stage is transferred to an adjacent diffuser (note: each impeller 63 engages with the adjacent diffuser 49 at balance ring 69 and, thus, is capable of transferring thrust load thereto - see col.4:ll.40-43).
Examiner’s Comment / Allowable Subject Matter
Although claims 16 and 17 are not rejected over prior art, patentability cannot be determined in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 issues described above. However, it is noted that the limitations of claims 16 and 17, in combination with the antecedent limitations, are not found in the prior art.
Citations of Pertinent Art
The following art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Camacho et al. (WO 2017176283 A1) discloses a multistage pump comprising a thrust bearing system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone number is (571)270-3364. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9-5 PM ET.
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 Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745