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
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 11/24/2025. In making the below rejections, the examiner has considered and addressed each of the applicants arguments. Claims 18 has been newly added and Claims 1-18 are currently pending and being examined.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 13 recite: “the operating point data is determined without altering control logic of the pumping process”.
There is no complete and thorough mention of the newly amended limitation in the original Specification. The specification only states para 0038 “The method according to the invention requires that the operating point data for the pump assembly is determined during normal operation of the pump assembly comprising a plurality of pump speeds” and in para 0008 “[o]ne of the problems associated with the known sensorless methods for estimating system curves is that most practical pump assemblies cannot be expected to allow for the execution of the identification run sequences, which alter control logic of the process". Thus, the limitations include subject matter that was not sufficiently described in the original Specification.
If the examiner has overlooked the portion of the original Specification that describes this feature of the present invention, then Applicant should point it out (by page number and line number) in the response to this Office Action.
Applicant may obviate this rejection by canceling the claim.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahonen (EP 2354556) in view of Marioni (USPN 9,970,433).
In reference to independent claim 1, Ahonen discloses a condition monitoring method for a pump assembly, the pump assembly comprising a pump, a variable speed drive adapted to actuate the pump (para 0001 discloses a pump and frequency converter),
a control system configured to control the variable speed drive (para 0009 discloses “The invention also relates to a frequency converter which carries out the method of the invention. Such an apparatus can be used in estimating the operation point of the pump.” examiner takes the position the control system is a part of the frequency converter), and a flow system fluidly connected to the pump (discharge connected to the pump), wherein the method comprises:
acquiring, via the control system at least two characteristic performance curves of the pump (para 0002 discloses “the QH and QP characteristic curves provided by the pump manufacturer together with the affinity laws”);
estimating, via the control system, at least two instantaneous performance variables of the pump for a plurality of operating points of the pump assembly (fig 17, 173, para 0002 discloses “The estimate of the operation point (volumetric flow Qv and head h) obtained with the calculation”),
the control system obtaining the at least two instantaneous performance variables from signals of the variable speed drive that actuate the pump (para 0002 discloses “It is known in the art of pumping that the operation point of a centrifugal pump can be estimated using a torque estimate (Test) and a rotational speed estimate (nest) from the frequency converter”),
determining operating point data for the pump assembly based on the at least two characteristic performance curves of the pump and the estimated instantaneous performance variables of the pump (para 0002 discloses “It is known in the art of pumping that the operation point of a centrifugal pump can be estimated using a torque estimate (Test) and a rotational speed estimate (nest) from the frequency converter and the QH and QP characteristic curves provided by the pump manufacturer together with the affinity laws.”), the operating point data comprising an estimated flow rate (Qv) and an estimated head (h) for the plurality of operating points of the pump assembly (done at 173, fig 17); and
estimating the system curve for the pump assembly based on the operating point data (para 0006 discloses “The invention is based on the idea of estimating the process curve using QP calculation when the pump is operated in or close to the nominal operation area. The obtained process curve is then used for estimating the output of the pump by calculating the intersection point of the process curve and the QH curve of the pump, which is converted with affinity laws to the current rotational speed of the pump. This intersection calculation is preferably carried out if the pump is operated outside of its nominal operation area.”),
wherein the operating point data is determined during normal operation of the pump assembly (Ahonen keeps operating and is only triggered on a deviation of the curve), wherein the normal operation of the pump assembly comprises a plurality of pump speeds (checked at 177, fig 17) and the operating point data is determined without altering the control logic of the pumping process (the process keeps running without affecting control logic), wherein the method includes a curve fitting procedure, in which estimated system curves are fitted on the operating point data (see fig 7 and 8 for examples),
wherein the plurality curves are provided over a long period of time in order to detect a change in an operating state of the pump assembly for assessing whether the pump assembly requires maintenance (para 0033 discloses “According to an embodiment, the validity of the process curve is monitored.” Then later on para 0036 goes onto disclose “In addition to the change of the process, the error terms may also change due to wearing of the pump, a malfunction of the pump or some other factor disturbing the normal operation of the pump. Usually all the above factors can be noticed with condition monitoring measurements.”).
Ahonen is silent to wherein the curve fitting procedure includes providing estimated system curves for a plurality of fitting time windows, wherein each of the plurality of fitting time windows includes a plurality of operating points of the pump assembly.
Marioni, a similar pump control system, teaches the curve fitting procedure includes providing estimated system curves for a plurality of fitting time windows (col 7, lines 21-28 discloses “a wait step, generically indicated by 1, during which the circulator 20 is controlled in accordance with the default curve C.sub.def for a predetermined period: a first, longer, starting time T.sub.f, in the case where the system 1 is started for the first time; a standard starting time T.sub.n for all the subsequent starting operations. In the first case, the wait time allows installation and venting of the system 1; in the second case, it merely allows the system to be stabilized. In the preferred embodiment described here the first starting time T.sub.f is equal to 90 minutes and the standard starting time T.sub.n is equal to 30 minutes.”
After initially starting the algorithm in fig 11 goes onto disclose in col 10, fig 9-12 “control operation “h”, carried out in real time, identifies when the time which has lapsed since the last variation in the driving curve (namely the first timer T.sub.1) reaches a wait time T.sub.w”
the wait time is the particular length of time that a certain curve is applicable and is varied in the algorithm in fig. 11), wherein each of the plurality of fitting time windows includes a plurality of operating points of the pump assembly (forming the “driving curves” above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Ahonen with the “time windows” method (shown in fig 11) of Marioni “in order to adapt to the variations of the circulating flow” col 1, lines 41-42; Marioni.
In reference to independent claim 13, Ahonen discloses a power converter system for a pump assembly comprising: a power converter (the frequency converter of para 0001) adapted to supply power to an electric motor (para 0012 discloses a motor) which is adapted to be connected to a pump (para 0001 disclose a pump); and a control system adapted to control the power converter (para 0001 discloses a pump and frequency converter, a portion of the frequency converter acting as a controller);
wherein the control system is adapted to carry out the condition monitoring method (para 0009 discloses “The invention also relates to a frequency converter which carries out the method of the invention. Such an apparatus can be used in estimating the operation point of the pump.” examiner takes the position the control system is a part of the frequency converter) including the steps determining at least two characteristic performance curves of the pump (para 0002 discloses “the QH and QP characteristic curves provided by the pump manufacturer together with the affinity laws”); estimating at least two instantaneous performance variables of the pump for a plurality of operating points of the pump assembly (fig 17, 173, para 0002 discloses “The estimate of the operation point (volumetric flow Qv and head h) obtained with the calculation”); determining operating point data for the pump assembly based on the at least two characteristic performance curves of the pump and the estimated instantaneous performance variables of the pump (para 0002 discloses “It is known in the art of pumping that the operation point of a centrifugal pump can be estimated using a torque estimate (Test) and a rotational speed estimate (nest) from the frequency converter and the QH and QP characteristic curves provided by the pump manufacturer together with the affinity laws.”),
the operating point data comprising an estimated flow rate (Qv) and an estimated head (h) for the plurality of operating points of the pump assembly (done at 173, fig 17); and estimating the system curve for the pump assembly based on the operating point data (para 0006 discloses “The invention is based on the idea of estimating the process curve using QP calculation when the pump is operated in or close to the nominal operation area. The obtained process curve is then used for estimating the output of the pump by calculating the intersection point of the process curve and the QH curve of the pump, which is converted with affinity laws to the current rotational speed of the pump. This intersection calculation is preferably carried out if the pump is operated outside of its nominal operation area.”), wherein the operating point data is determined during normal operation of the pump assembly (Ahonen keeps operating and is only triggered on a deviation of the curve),
Wherein the normal operation of the pump assembly comprises a plurality of pump speeds (checked at 177, fig 17) and the operating point data is determined without altering control logic of the pumping process (the process keeps running without affecting control logic), wherein the method includes a curve fitting procedure, in which estimated system curves are fitted on the operating point data (see fig 7 and 8 for examples),
and wherein the plurality of curves are provided over a long period of time in order to detect a change in an operating state of the pump assembly for assessing whether the pump assembly requires maintenance (para 0033 discloses “According to an embodiment, the validity of the process curve is monitored.” Then later on para 0036 goes onto disclose “In addition to the change of the process, the error terms may also change due to wearing of the pump, a malfunction of the pump or some other factor disturbing the normal operation of the pump. Usually all the above factors can be noticed with condition monitoring measurements.”).
Ahonen is silent to wherein the curve fitting procedure includes providing estimated system curves for a plurality of fitting time windows, wherein each of the plurality of fitting time windows includes a plurality of operating points of the pump assembly.
Marioni, a similar pump control system, teaches the curve fitting procedure includes providing estimated system curves for a plurality of fitting time windows (col 7, lines 21-28 discloses “a wait step, generically indicated by 1, during which the circulator 20 is controlled in accordance with the default curve C.sub.def for a predetermined period: a first, longer, starting time T.sub.f, in the case where the system 1 is started for the first time; a standard starting time T.sub.n for all the subsequent starting operations. In the first case, the wait time allows installation and venting of the system 1; in the second case, it merely allows the system to be stabilized. In the preferred embodiment described here the first starting time T.sub.f is equal to 90 minutes and the standard starting time T.sub.n is equal to 30 minutes.”
After initially starting the algorithm in fig 11 goes onto disclose in col 10, fig 9-12 “control operation “h”, carried out in real time, identifies when the time which has lapsed since the last variation in the driving curve (namely the first timer T.sub.1) reaches a wait time T.sub.w”
the wait time is the particular length of time that a certain curve is applicable and is varied in the algorithm in fig. 11), wherein each of the plurality of fitting time windows includes a plurality of operating points of the pump assembly (forming the “driving curves” above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Ahonen with the “time windows” method (shown in fig 11) of Marioni “in order to adapt to the variations of the circulating flow” col 1, lines 41-42; Marioni.
In reference to dependent claim 2, Ahonen in view of Marioni discloses the method according to claim 1, Marioni further discloses a method wherein the method comprises determining at least one estimation parameter for each fitting time window, and a filtering procedure for omitting unsuitable estimated system curves (the method filters out a flow that is above or below a threshold value, see cite below), wherein the filtering procedure is adapted to identify the unsuitable estimated system curves based on at least one acceptance criterion (flow is within a specific range), the at least one acceptance criterion including conditions for the at least one estimation parameter (col 8, lines 9-13 discloses “during a first check step generically indicated by “d”, evaluating whether the variation in flowrate ΔQ has exceeded an upper control threshold κ or has fallen below a lower control threshold −κ and whether said condition is maintained for a stabilization time T.sub.s” also shown in fig 11).
In reference to dependent claim 3, Ahonen in view of Marioni discloses the method according to claim 2, Ahonen further discloses wherein the at least one estimation parameter comprises at least one of the following:
an estimated flow resistance factor of the system (k), an estimated static head of the system (hs, para 0023 discloses “The characteristic curve of the process, i.e. the process curve, is known to be of format hprocess=hs+kQ2,in which h s is the static head and the term k represents the dynamic flow resistance.”), a coefficient of determination, and a speed difference, which is a difference between maximum and minimum speeds of the pump in the fitting time window.
In reference to dependent claim 4, Ahonen in view of Marioni discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the at least one estimation parameter comprises the estimated flow resistance factor of the system (k, para 0023 discloses “The characteristic curve of the process, i.e. the process curve, is known to be of format hprocess=hs+kQ2,in which h s is the static head and the term k represents the dynamic flow resistance.”), and the at least one acceptance criterion includes a condition according to which the estimated flow resistance factor of the system must be greater than zero (1712, fig 17).
In reference to dependent claim 7, Ahonen in view of Marioni teaches the method according to claim 1, however
Ahonen and Marioni are silent to specifically wherein the long period of time is at least one week.
It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B).
Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05II(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the period of time as taught by Ahonen in view of Marioni because the length of time for monitoring pump wear was recognized as a result-effective variable (in col 9, lines 40-51, disclosed above) achieving a particular level of curve degradation and it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the time to achieve a desired length of time to monitor for wear.
In reference to dependent claim 8, Ahonen in view of Marioni discloses the method according to claim 3, Marioni further teaches a method wherein the method comprises recording the estimated flow resistance factor of the system (step e in the abstract above discloses “(e) modifying the set driving curve, replacing it with another curve from the plurality of driving curves”) and/or the estimated static head of the system for the fitting time windows whose estimated system curves pass the filtering procedure (the filtering procedure filters on the basis of flow as stated above).
In reference to dependent claim 9, Ahonen in view of Marioni discloses the method according to claim 1, Marioni further teaches the method wherein the plurality of fitting time windows comprises overlapping fitting time windows (col 4, lines 18-21 disclose “when said step of modifying the driving curve upon lapsing of the wait time is performed, incrementing the variable of the wait time by an additional time; (46) when, during the identification and check steps, an increase or a reduction in the flowrate maintained over time is identified, reinitializing the variable of the wait time to an initial value”).
In reference to dependent claim 10, Ahonen in view of Marioni discloses the method according to claim 1, Marioni further teaches the method wherein a length of each of the fitting time windows is in a range of 30s to 48 hours (col 4, lines 30-32 discloses “the wait time may be initially equal to one hour” the wait time is the fitting time window).
In reference to dependent claim 11, Ahonen in view of Marioni discloses the method according to claim 1, Ahonen further discloses a system wherein the method comprises notifying operating personnel of the pump assembly when the pump assembly requires maintenance (para 0036 discloses “In addition to the change of the process, the error terms may also change due to wearing of the pump, a malfunction of the pump or some other factor disturbing the normal operation of the pump. Usually all the above factors can be noticed with condition monitoring measurements.” Both mechanical wear and blocking can degrade the system to the point the maintenance is required. The user is notified by the outputting of the curve information).
In reference to dependent claim 12, Ahonen in view of Marioni discloses the method according to claim 1, Ahonen further discloses a system wherein said change in an operating state of the pump assembly comprises a change in a value of the estimated flow resistance factor of the system (step 1711 fig 17), wherein the pump assembly is interpreted to require maintenance when a value of the estimated flow resistance factor of the system reaches a predetermined limit value (para 0036 discloses “In addition to the change of the process, the error terms may also change due to wearing of the pump, a malfunction of the pump or some other factor disturbing the normal operation of the pump. Usually all the above factors can be noticed with condition monitoring measurements.” Error terms delta Q and delta h are calculated from flow resistance k and h in 191-192 fig 19).
In reference to dependent claim 14, Ahonen in view of Marioni discloses the power converter system according to claim 13, Ahonen further discloses a system wherein the power converter is a frequency converter (para 0001 discloses a pump and frequency converter).
In reference to dependent claim 15, Ahonen in view of Marioni discloses the power converter system according to claim 14, Ahonen further discloses a system wherein the control system is adapted to estimate the at least two instantaneous performance variables of the pump for the plurality of operating points of the pump assembly based on data relating to operation of the frequency converter (step 173, fig 17 Torque and speed from the frequency converter are used to estimate flow and head).
In reference to dependent claim 16, Ahonen in view of Marioni discloses the method according to claim 1, Ahonen further discloses a system wherein the normal operation of the pump assembly comprises a plurality of pump speeds (step 171, fig 17 shows that the process runs at multiple speeds).
In reference to dependent claim 17, Ahonen in view of Marioni discloses the power converter system according to claim 13, Ahonen further discloses a system wherein the normal operation of the pump assembly comprises a plurality of pump speeds (step 171, fig 17 shows that the process runs at multiple speeds).
In reference to dependent claim 18, Ahonen in view of Marioni discloses the method according to claim 1, however
Ahonen is silent to controlling a power converter of the variable speed drive via the control system based on the estimated system curve.
Marioni further discloses a system further comprising controlling a power converter of the variable speed drive via the control system based on the estimated system curve (col 2, lines 42-45 discloses “by resetting the driving curve as a direct response to the variation in flowrate, allows immediate adaptation to the conditions of the system, namely a dynamic and efficient adaptive control system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Ahonen with the driving curve adaptation of Marioni “in order to adapt to the variations of the circulating flow” col 1, lines 41-42; Marioni.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahonen (EP 2354556) in view of Marioni (USPN 9,970,433) in reference to claim 3 above and further in view of Abe (JP 2015165886).
In reference to dependent claim 5, Ahonen in view of Marioni teaches the method according to claim 3, however
Ahonen and Marioni do not teach wherein the at least one estimation parameter comprises the coefficient of determination, and the at least one acceptance criterion comprises includes a condition according to which the coefficient of determination must be greater than a limit value for coefficient of determination.
Abe, a similar system for determining the characteristics of a flowing fluid teaches wherein the at least one estimation parameter comprises the coefficient of determination, and the at least one acceptance criterion (para 0198 discloses “determining whether the feature amount candidate 3013 satisfies the specific condition”) comprises includes a condition according to which the coefficient of determination must be greater than a limit value for coefficient of determination (para 0198 discloses “A certain feature amount candidate 3013 is a candidate in which a coefficient of determination R2 when a relationship between pressures and feature amounts is linearly approximated is equal to or greater than a specific value (for example, 0.5)” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Ahonen in view of Marioni with the use of coefficient of determination as taught by Abe “pressure measurement device and the like that accurately measure pressure” para 0011, Abe.
In reference to dependent claim 6, Ahonen in view of Marioni and Abe teaches the method according to claim 5, Abe further discloses the method wherein the limit value for coefficient of determination is greater than or equal to 0.5 (para 0198 discloses “A certain feature amount candidate 3013 is a candidate in which a coefficient of determination R2 when a relationship between pressures and feature amounts is linearly approximated is equal to or greater than a specific value (for example, 0.5)”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/24/2025 have been considered but, unless otherwise addressed below, are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES W NICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)272-6492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached at (571) 270-5246. 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.
/C.W.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783