DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant argues in their supplemental response dated 09 September 2025, the instant learly tie the identified abstract idea to the pump, pipeline, etc. making them much more concrete, however the examiner respectfully disagrees. These terms merely link the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Although the additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, these types of limitation merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (pumps and pipelines) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims; as there is no real-world action that improves these generically claimed elements through the performance or result of the abstract idea. Therefore, the examiner is not persuaded.
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 16-32 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.
With respect to claim 16, line 16, after step c. there is an “or” recited. The term “or” adds confusion, does applicant intended to offer a choice between alternatives of steps a-c and d-j? Clarification is required.
To further prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the claim as step. d being part of step c.
With respect to claim 30, the examiner is unclear of the scope of the claim, as it depends from cancelled claims 5 or 6. To further prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the claim as depending from claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites d. determining the actual rotational speed of the centrifugal pump assembly, e. calculating a model rotational speed with the aid of a mathematical pump-motor model simulating the behavior of the centrifugal pump assembly within the hydraulic pipeline network, f. calculating at least one disturbance signal from a deviation of the model rotational speed from the actual rotational speed of the centrifugal pump assembly, g. determining at least one correction signal by integrating the product of the disturbance signal and a sine or cosine signal with the single or a multiple of the excitation frequency over at least one period of the excitation signal, h. adapting at least one model parameter of the pump-motor model as a function of the correction signal, i. calculating the delivery flow rate and/or the delivery head using the adapted pump-motor model, and j. setting the delivery head as a function of the delivery flow rate., which fall in the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
The examiner concluded limitations fall into the mathematical concepts grouping because paragraph [0110] of applicant’s published specification details using various algorithms for determining the actual speed. In para. [0112], applicant’s filed specification details the mathematical approach for calculating a model rotational speed with the aid of a mathematical pump-motor model simulating the behavior of the centrifugal pump assembly within the hydraulic pipeline network. In paragraphs [0112-0148], a system of equations used for calculating at least one disturbance signal from a deviation of the model rotational speed from the actual rotational speed of the centrifugal pump assembly. The limitations directed towards, determining at least one correction signal is described in para. [0153-0157], which describes the mathematical approach of integrating the product of the disturbance signal and a sine or cosine signal with the single or a multiple of the excitation frequency over at least one period of the excitation signal, adapting at least one model parameter of the pump-motor model as a function of the correction signal, calculating the delivery flow rate and/or the delivery head using the adapted pump-motor model, and setting the delivery head as a function of the delivery flow rate are detailed. Lastly, the conclusion that limitation of calculating the determination of the delivery flow rate falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts is supported by paragraph [0159].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element limitations of a speed-controlled centrifugal pump assembly in a hydraulic pipeline network, the operation the centrifugal pump assembly in the hydraulic pipeline network at a reference rotational speed or a torque, the periodic exciting the hydraulic pipeline network by applying a periodic excitation signal of a specific excitation frequency to the reference rotational speed or to the torque to obtain a modulated torque or a modulated setpoint speed, and to modulate the actual rotational speed of the centrifugal pump assembly, the setting the modulated torque or determining and setting a torque required to achieve the modulated setpoint speed are merely steps that generically link the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea has any impact to the pump, pipeline, reference speed/torque, excitation signal, modulated rotational speed or setting of the torque. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the hydraulic system, the pump, its reference speed/torque and related excitation signal generically link the abstract idea to a field of use. The result of the abstract idea does nothing to improve or better the operation of the pump or the signals driving the pump, as currently claimed. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 17 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 18 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 19 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 20 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 21 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 22 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim further recites the additional element of a controller. The controller, as claimed, is merely acting as a tool for performing the abstract idea. The result of the abstract idea does nothing to improve or better the operation of the claimed controller and therefore fails to providing significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 23 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim further recites the additional element of a controller. The controller, as claimed, is merely acting as a tool for performing the abstract idea. The result of the abstract idea does nothing to improve or better the operation of the claimed controller and therefore fails to providing significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 24 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 25 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The further defined model parameter merely links the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 26 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The further defined model parameter merely links the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Lastly, the claimed adjusting of the hydraulic inductance of the system merely reads as a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea. The limitation does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea, as the limitation lacks any specifics as how the adjustment is made to the physical system. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claim 27 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The further defined model parameter merely links the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 28 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The further defined model parameter merely links the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Lastly, the claimed adjusting of the hydraulic inductance of the system merely reads as a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea. The limitation does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea, as the limitation lacks any specifics as how the adjustment is made to the physical system. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claim 29 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim further recites the additional element of a controller. The controller, as claimed, is merely acting as a tool for performing the abstract idea. The result of the abstract idea does nothing to improve or better the operation of the claimed controller and therefore fails to providing significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 30, as best understood, as it currently depends from cancelled claims 5 or 6, further defines the model without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 31 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The signals merely describe transitory forms.
Claim 32 recites the additional elements of a centrifugal pump, and electric motor, and control electronics. The pump and motor merely link the abstract idea to a field of use, as the result of the abstract does not appear to have an effected or active step bettering the operation of these claimed elements. The claimed electronics, as claimed, are merely acting as tools for performing the abstract idea; as the result of the abstract idea does nothing to improve or better their respective operations. Therefore, these additional elements fail to providing significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sander et al. (10,184,476) teaches determining variables of a centrifugal pump.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853