Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/959,636

CONDENSATE PUMP ASSEMBLY & CONTROL METHODS

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Oct 04, 2022
Examiner
STIMPERT, PHILIP EARL
Art Unit
3783
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Aspen Pumps Limited
OA Round
6 (Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
537 granted / 857 resolved
-7.3% vs TC avg
Strong +49% interview lift
Without
With
+49.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
85 currently pending
Career history
942
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
50.1%
+10.1% vs TC avg
§102
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
§112
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 857 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
ETAILED 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 . 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. Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-9 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pre-Grant Publication 2002/0190687 to Bell et al. (Bell hereinafter). Regarding claim 1, Bell teaches a method of controlling a pump assembly (118) which comprises a pump (118) and a controller (104) connected to the pump (see e.g. paragraph 20) for powering the pump (at step 213), measuring the current value drawn by the pump (at 110 and step 207, see paragraph 19), comparing the measured current value to a predetermined threshold current value (at step 212, “ABSOLUTE MINIMUM LEVEL”), controlling the pump to be powered to operate in a pumping mode if the current value exceeds the threshold (i.e. branch to step 207 from step 213 as discussed in paragraph 31), rendering the pump unpowered (at 216) if the current value is less than the threshold value (yes branch from 214), operating for a predetermined start-test period (STP hereinafter, one second epochs, see paragraph 27) and measuring current value comprises measuring a current value drawn by the pump during (as well as before and after) the STP. Bell further teaches that the method is repeated after a sleep mode (paragraph 33) which occurs in the low current case, and therefore teaches allowing the predetermined STI to elapse, measuring a current (at 207 after a sleep mode) during a sleep period. Regarding claims 4 and 9, Bell teaches repeating steps (branch from 213 to 207) while the pump remains operational. Regarding claim 5, Bell teaches an interval of 5 seconds (see paragraph 32) which falls into the claimed range of 0.25 seconds to 60 seconds. Regarding claim 7, Bell teaches measuring current value during pumping mode (at 207, i.e. main loop) and continuing to power the pump (paragraphs 31-32). Regarding claim 8, the one second epoch taught by Bell (paragraph 27) functions as either the STI or the operating test interval, depending on the state of the measured current and number of elapsed test cycles. Regarding claim 35, Bell teaches a housing (at least a marine vessel) comprising various portions which may constitute an upper housing portion when read broadly. Bell further teaches an inlet (in the tank 119) and an outlet (to the vessel exterior). 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. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell as applied to the parent claim above, and further in view of US Patent 4,633,382 to Upadhyay et al. (Upadhyay). Regarding claim 6, Bell teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, but does not teach PWM control at less than maximum rated value of the pump. Upadhyay teaches another motor control system generally, and particularly teaches the use of PWM control, which is commonly understood to allow for fine control of a motor output power and therefore pump speed and/or torque. Upadhyay further teaches an initial current ramp and operation at sub maximum value (see Fig. 3) in order to limit inrush torque (see col. 4, ln. 33 through col. 5, ln. 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use PWM control in the pump of Bell and further to include a startup ramp at less than maximum rated power as taught by Upadhyay in order to obtain fine control of the pump output and limit inrush current. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 4 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the argument that Bell does not teach rendering the pump unpowered, the examiner is not persuaded. Applicant points out that the examiner misreads Bell at the discussion of step 214. The examiner is persuaded on this point that the motor is not shut down at step 214. The summary below has been modified to take this into account. However, as applicant acknowledges that Bell’s method does shut down the pump at step 216. For clarity, the examiner summarizes Bell as follows. Operation of the pump begins at Fig. 2, and assuming a successful startup, process to Fig. 3 and the main loop. In the main loop, the motor is powered, and its current is measured at step 207. At paragraph 27, Bell states that this operation is for a one second epoch, that is the method is repeated after every epoch. Subsequently, at step 211, the measured current is compared to the low current threshold (or ABSOLUTE MINIMUM LEVEL). If the measured current is above the low current threshold (that is, the deviation from average is less than a maximum allowable value or above an absolute minimum level), then the method proceeds to the main loop delay (corresponding to the operating test period of claim 8) where operation is continued during the one second epoch, after which the method is restarted. If, instead, the measured current is below the low current threshold, the method takes the “yes” branch from one of 211 or 212 and proceeds to 214. At 214, the method has two options. If the exception time (corresponding to the start test period) has not expired, then the method takes the no branch to step 213 and continues to power the pump for return to step 207 and the current measurement there. If the time has expired, then the system proceeds to 215 and 216 to shut down for the time being. As such, Bell teaches at least one of 214 or 213 contains a pause during which the current is measured and compared with a reference current, which corresponds to the STI of claim 1. Bell further teaches that the method is repeated after a sleep mode (paragraph 33) which occurs in the low current case. Accordingly, when applicant argues that Bell’s “pump is never restarted after the pump is shutdown” (Remarks, page 8, emphasis in original), this is incorrect. Instead, Bell teaches that “Any time the motor shutdown is performed as at 216, the micro controller then enters a sleep mode until power to the module is again interrupted and reapplied” (paragraph 33). As such, Bell explicitly teaches that the method is repeated. Furthermore, applicant argues that the pump continues to run during the delay. While the examiner agrees with the characterization of Bell, this is insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention. Crucially, the only element which is required to be within the STI or STP is the current measurement. Since Bell teaches this feature within that time period (i.e. before the expiration of the exception time in step 214), and also teaches the other steps of the method, the claim is anticipated. In view of the above, the examiner continues to hold that the claimed invention is unpatentable over the cited references. Please also see a newly cited reference as discussed below. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent 5,545,012 to Anastos et al. teaches a soft-start pump control system including a low current based liquid detector module (24) which is periodically started (col. 2, ln. 57-61) in order to maintain a space substantially liquid free (col. 2, ln. 39-52). THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p. 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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached on 571-270-1744. 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. /PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 24 March 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 04, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 18, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 07, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
May 06, 2024
Response Filed
Jun 06, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 08, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 30, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 03, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 04, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 06, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jun 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 21, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 04, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12577961
LOW-FLOW FLUID DELIVERY SYSTEM AND LOW-FLOW DEVICE THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573932
LINEAR MOTOR AND LINEAR COMPRESSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12560168
VARIABLE DISPLACEMENT PUMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12560173
MOTOR AND APPARATUS USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12529366
MEMBRANE PUMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+49.3%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 857 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month