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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 09/11/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8 & 10-15 are pending in the application. Claim 9 is cancelled.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: each mention of the term “derivate” in the specification should be changed to “derivative”.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows,
“electric drive apparatus” in Claim 1, where the generic placeholder is “apparatus”, the functional language is at least “that controls said motor”, and sufficient modifying language is not provided; instant application Paragraph 0022 describes the electric drive apparatus as a frequency converter, providing sufficient modifying language
“electric drive apparatus” in Claim 1, where the generic placeholder is “apparatus”, the functional language is at least “start an accelerating ramp to ramp up a speed of the motor of said submersible centrifugal pump”, and sufficient modifying language is not provided; instant application Paragraph 0022 describes the electric drive apparatus as a frequency converter, providing sufficient modifying language
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 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 2, 6, 9 & 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 2, Applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims in response to detecting said significant increase in the derivative of the monitored torque versus the speed of the motor, determining said significant increase indicates an operational pumping condition. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately explain how to determine the significant increase indicates an operational pumping condition.
The original disclosure only uses similarly broad language as the limitation to explain how the significant increase indicates an operational pumping condition. The limitation is considered a computer-implemented functional claim limitation due to the use of the electric drive apparatus to make the determination, so requires an “algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.” See MPEP 2161.01(I). The original disclosure has not provided an “algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function”, so does not provide sufficient written description for the limitation.
As to Claim 6, Applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims said electric drive apparatus is arranged to determine when said detected significant increase in the derivate of the monitored torque versus the speed of the motor indicates a flow of fluid through said submersible centrifugal pump. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately explain how to determine the significant increase indicates a flow of fluid through said submersible centrifugal pump.
The original disclosure only uses similarly broad language as the limitation to explain how the significant increase indicates a flow of fluid through said submersible centrifugal pump. The limitation is considered a computer-implemented functional claim limitation due to the use of the electric drive apparatus to make the determination, so requires an “algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.” See MPEP 2161.01(I). The original disclosure has not provided an “algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function”, so does not provide sufficient written description for the limitation.
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 1-8 & 10-15 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.
As to Claim 1, the limitation “upon detecting a significant increase in a derivative of the monitored torque versus the speed of the motor, starting an operational pumping ramp for the motor by said electric drive apparatus”, in Lines 7-9, is indefinite.
It is not clear what constitutes a “significant increase”. Instant application Paragraph 0032 defines “significant increase” as “a substantial and permanent increase in the derivate of monitored torque versus pump motor speed.” However, this definition is indefinite for the following reasons.
The term “permanent” is indefinite within the context of the application, since it is not clear how long something must exist before said something is considered permanent. For example, instant application Figure 5 shows t2 as the point where the derivate occurs. However, it is not clear how much time has passed at time t2 to the extent one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the “derivate” is permanent. The amount of time passed at t2 could be a few microseconds or hours, or even days. Even then, one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the time between times as being “permanent”, since the this unknown time period has ended. In light of this, the term “permanent” is unbounded, rendering the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 5, the limitation “upon detecting a significant increase in a derivative of the monitored torque versus the speed of the motor, start an operational pumping ramp for the motor”, in Lines 10-12, is indefinite.
Additionally, it is not clear what constitutes a “significant increase”. Instant application Paragraph 0032 defines “significant increase” as “a substantial and permanent increase in the derivate of monitored torque versus pump motor speed.” However, this definition is indefinite for the following reasons.
The term “permanent” is indefinite within the context of the application, since it is not clear how long something must exist before said something is considered permanent. For example, instant application Figure 5 shows t2 as the point where the derivate occurs. However, it is not clear how much time has passed at time t2 to the extent one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the “derivate” is permanent. The amount of time passed at t2 could be a few microseconds or hours, or even days. Even then, one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the time between times as being “permanent”, since the this unknown time period has ended. In light of this, the term “permanent” is unbounded, rendering the claim indefinite.
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, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 13 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (U.S. Patent 7,668,694), in view of Ido (JPH04358781A – see attached translation), further in view of Ahola (U.S. PGPub 2014/0136000).
As to Claim 1, Anderson teaches a method for operating pumping with (Column 3, Line 52, to Column 4, Line 4) a submersible centrifugal pump (32) configured for pumping fluid (water; Column 1, Lines 46-52), the method comprising:
an electric drive apparatus (37/50, where one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude 37 is a frequency converter, since Column 12, Lines 17-18, describe Element 37 as controlling the speed of the motor) that controls (Column 12, Lines 17-21) said motor (36),
monitoring (Column 4, Line 64, to Column 5, Line 1) a torque (as described in Column 4, Line 64, to Column 5, Line 1) of the motor (36) versus (as shown in Figure 22) a speed (as described in Column 5, Line 64, to Column 5, Line 1) of the motor (36) by (Column 12, Lines 17-21) said electric drive apparatus (37/50).
Anderson is silent on starting operations, so does not teach a method for starting pumping…the method comprising:
starting an accelerating ramp to ramp up a speed of a motor of said pump by the electric drive apparatus,
upon detecting a significant increase in a derivative of the monitored torque versus the speed of the motor, starting an operational pumping ramp for the motor by said electric drive apparatus.
Ido describes a pump control system, and teaches a method for starting pumping (Paragraph 0005) with a pump (the pump described in Paragraph 0005) configured for pumping fluid (water; Paragraph 0011), the method comprising:
starting an accelerating ramp (see Figure 1 below) to ramp up (as shown in Figure 1) a speed (Paragraph 0013, Lines 140-148) of a motor (the motor discussed in Paragraph 0013) of said pump (the pump described in Paragraph 0005) by an electric drive apparatus (inverter; Paragraph 0013, where one of ordinary skill in the art would broadly conclude an inverter is a frequency converter).
Ido Paragraph 0013 continues to teach the pressure/flow is monitored, where a detection in the flow (Point A in Figure 1) through the pump beginning (Paragraph 0013) results in starting an operational pumping ramp (see Figure 1 below) for the motor (the motor discussed in Paragraph 0013) by said electric drive apparatus (inverter; Paragraph 0013).
PNG
media_image1.png
477
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ido Figure 1, Modified by Examiner
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to start the pump, as taught by Anderson, with ramp ups, as taught by Ido, to reduce “fluctuations in supply pressure or flow rate (Paragraph 0005).”
Ahola describes a method for controlling a pump which compares rotational speed to torque (Figures 8/9), and teaches the means for detecting the beginning of flow (Paragraphs 0024/0027/0028) is by detecting a significant increase in a derivative (Paragraph 0081) of the monitored torque versus the speed (Paragraph 0024, where the “derivative” is shown in Figures 8/9, and described in Paragraph 0081) of the motor (74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a torque vs speed comparison, as taught by Ahola, to determine when to start the operational pumping ramp, as taught by Anderson, as modified, to “allow a more cost-effective implementation (Paragraph 0026).”
As to Claim 2, Anderson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach in response to detecting said significant increase in the derivative (Ahola Paragraph 0081) of the monitored torque versus the speed (Ahola Paragraph 0024, where the “derivative” is shown in Ahola Figures 8/9, and described in Ahola Paragraph 0081) of the motor (Anderson 36), determining said significant increase indicates (Ahola Paragraph 0081) an operational pumping condition (“the pump started to produce flow”, as described in Ahola Paragraph 0081).
As to Claim 4, Anderson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach said pumped fluid (water; Anderson Column 1, Lines 46-52) is water (as described in Anderson Column 1, Lines 46-52).
As to Claim 5, Anderson teaches an arrangement (Figure 1) for pumping fluid (water; Column 1, Lines 46-52), said arrangement (Figure 1) comprising:
a submersible centrifugal pump (32) and an electric drive apparatus (37/50, where one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude 37 is a frequency converter, since Column 12, Lines 17-18, describe Element 37 as controlling the speed of the motor) arranged to control (Column 12, Lines 17-21) a motor (36) of said submersible centrifugal pump (Figure 1),
wherein said electric drive apparatus (37/50) is arranged to:
monitor (Column 4, Line 64, to Column 5, Line 1) a torque (as described in Column 4, Line 64, to Column 5, Line 1) of the motor (36) pump versus (as shown in Figure 22) the speed (as described in Column 5, Line 64, to Column 5, Line 1) of the motor (36); and
Anderson is silent on starting operations, so does not teach said electric drive apparatus (37/50) is arranged to:
start an accelerating ramp to ramp up a speed of the motor of said submersible centrifugal pump;
upon detecting a significant increase in a derivative of the monitored torque versus the speed of the motor, start an operational pumping ramp for the motor.
Ido describes a pump control system for starting pumping (Paragraph 0005) with a pump (the pump described in Paragraph 0005) configured for pumping fluid (water; Paragraph 0011), and teaches said electric drive apparatus (inverter; Paragraph 0013, where one of ordinary skill in the art would broadly conclude an inverter is a frequency converter) is arranged to
start an accelerating ramp (see Figure 1 in the Claim 1 rejection above) to ramp up (as shown in Figure 1) a speed (Paragraph 0013, Lines 140-148) of the motor (the motor discussed in Paragraph 0013) of said pump (the pump described in Paragraph 0005).
Ido Paragraph 0013 continues to teach the pressure/flow is monitored, where a detection in the flow (Point A in Figure 1) through the pump beginning (Paragraph 0013) results in starting an operational pumping ramp (see Figure 1 in the Claim 1 rejection above) for the motor (the motor discussed in Paragraph 0013) by said electric drive apparatus (inverter; Paragraph 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to start the pump, as taught by Anderson, with ramp ups, as taught by Ido, to reduce “fluctuations in supply pressure or flow rate (Paragraph 0005).”
Ahola describes a method for controlling a pump which compares rotational speed to torque (Figures 8/9), and teaches the means for detecting the beginning of flow (Paragraphs 0024/0027/0028)) is by detecting a significant increase in a derivative (Paragraph 0081) of the monitored torque versus the speed (Paragraph 0024, where the “derivative” is shown in Figures 8/9, and described in Paragraph 0081) of the motor (74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a torque vs speed comparison, as taught by Ahola, to determine when to start the operational pumping ramp, as taught by Anderson, as modified, to “allow a more cost-effective implementation (Paragraph 0026).”
As to Claim 6, Anderson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 5, and continues to teach said electric drive apparatus (Anderson 37/50, as modified above) is arranged to determine when said detected significant increase in the derivative (Ahola Paragraph 0081) of the monitored torque versus the speed (Ahola Paragraph 0024, where the “derivative” is shown in Ahola Figures 8/9, and described in Ahola Paragraph 0081) of the motor (Anderson 36) indicates (Ahola Paragraph 0081) a flow of fluid through (“the pump started to produce flow”, as described in Ahola Paragraph 0081) said submersible centrifugal pump (Anderson 32).
As to Claim 8, Anderson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 5, and continues to teach said motor (Anderson 36) provides power (as shown in Anderson Figure 3, where the incoming power goes through 37, into 36, then into 32) to said submersible centrifugal pump (Anderson 32) and is arranged as a separate unit from (as shown in Anderson Figure 1, which shows motor 36 separated by space from pump 32) said submersible centrifugal pump (Anderson 32).
As to Claim 10, Anderson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 5, and continues to teach said pumped fluid (water; Anderson Column 1, Lines 46-52) is water (as described in Anderson Column 1, Lines 46-52).
As to Claim 11, Anderson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 5, and continues to teach said electric drive apparatus (Anderson 37/50, as modified above) is a frequency converter (37/50, where one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude 37 is a frequency converter, since Column 12, Lines 17-18, describe Element 37 as controlling the speed of the motor).
As to Claim 13, Anderson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1-2, and continues to teach said pumped fluid (water; Anderson Column 1, Lines 46-52) is water (as described in Anderson Column 1, Lines 46-52).
As to Claim 15, Anderson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 5-6, and continues to teach said motor (Anderson 36) provides power (as shown in Anderson Figure 3, where the incoming power goes through 37, into 36, then into 32) to said submersible centrifugal pump (Anderson 32) and is arranged as a separate unit from (as shown in Anderson Figure 1, which shows motor 36 separated by space from pump 32) said submersible centrifugal pump (Anderson 32).
Claims 3, 7, 12 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, in view of Ido, further in view of Ahola, further in view of Lurk (U.S. PGPub 2009/0261766).
As to Claim 3, Anderson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach before said accelerating ramp, carrying out a starting ramp for starting the motor of said submersible centrifugal pump.
Lurk describes a method for starting a motor, and teaches before (as shown in Figure 2) said accelerating ramp (the ramp up of speed of motor 10 caused by the ramp of up voltage between times t1 and t2, as shown in Figure 2), carrying out a starting ramp (the motor speed ramp up resulting from applying the “preset starting voltage” for 0.25 seconds –as described in Paragraphs 0013/0017-- between times t0 and t1, as shown in Figure 2) for starting (Paragraph 0013) the motor (10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a starting ramp, as taught by Lurk, before the accelerating ramp, as taught by Anderson, as modified, to provide the minimum voltage required to start the motor (Paragraph 0020).
As to Claim 7, Anderson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 5, but does not teach said electric drive apparatus is arranged to carry out a starting ramp for starting the motor before said accelerating ramp.
Lurk describes a method for starting a motor, and teaches said electric drive apparatus (Figure 1) is arranged to carry out (Paragraph 0013) a starting ramp (the motor speed ramp up resulting from applying the “preset starting voltage” for 0.25 seconds –as described in Paragraphs 0013/0017-- between times t0 and t1, as shown in Figure 2) for starting (Paragraph 0013) the motor (10) before (as shown in Figure 2) said accelerating ramp (the ramp up of speed of motor 10 caused by the ramp of up voltage between times t1 and t2, as shown in Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a starting ramp, as taught by Lurk, before the accelerating ramp, as taught by Anderson, as modified, to provide the minimum voltage required to start the motor (Paragraph 0020).
As to Claim 12, Anderson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 1-2, but does not teach before said accelerating ramp, carrying out a starting ramp for starting the motor of said submersible centrifugal pump.
Lurk describes a method for starting a motor, and teaches before (as shown in Figure 2) said accelerating ramp (the ramp up of speed of motor 10 caused by the ramp of up voltage between times t1 and t2, as shown in Figure 2), carrying out a starting ramp (the motor speed ramp up resulting from applying the “preset starting voltage” for 0.25 seconds –as described in Paragraphs 0013/0017-- between times t0 and t1, as shown in Figure 2) for starting (Paragraph 0013) the motor (10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a starting ramp, as taught by Lurk, before the accelerating ramp, as taught by Anderson, as modified, to provide the minimum voltage required to start the motor (Paragraph 0020).
As to Claim 14, Anderson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claims 5-6, but does not teach said electric drive apparatus is arranged to carry out a starting ramp for starting the motor before said accelerating ramp.
Lurk describes a method for starting a motor, and teaches said electric drive apparatus (Figure 1) is arranged to carry out (Paragraph 0013) a starting ramp (the motor speed ramp up resulting from applying the “preset starting voltage” for 0.25 seconds –as described in Paragraphs 0013/0017-- between times t0 and t1, as shown in Figure 2) for starting (Paragraph 0013) the motor (10) before (as shown in Figure 2) said accelerating ramp (the ramp up of speed of motor 10 caused by the ramp of up voltage between times t1 and t2, as shown in Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a starting ramp, as taught by Lurk, before the accelerating ramp, as taught by Anderson, as modified, to provide the minimum voltage required to start the motor (Paragraph 0020).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(a) rejections for Claims 2 & 6, Applicant argues the algorithm required is disclosed in instant application Paragraph 0031, claiming the algorithm is a two step algorithm which includes “detecting a significant increase” and “determining that a significant increase indicates an operational pumping condition” –see Applicant’s 09/11/2025 Remarks on Page 6. Applicant continues to argue one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to configure an electric drive apparatus to monitor a signal indicating a significant increase in the claimed derivative –see Applicant’s 09/11/2025 Remarks on Page 7.
Examiner disagrees. Based off of the original disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to detect a significant increase or determine the significant increase indicates an operational pumping condition, since an algorithm has not been provided for either “step”. As explained above, the original disclosure does sufficiently explain what constitutes a significant increase. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to identify the claimed significant increase. Even if one of ordinary skill in the art was able to properly identify a significant increase, the original disclosure has not provided any means for one of ordinary skill in the art to attach the significant increase to an operational pumping condition, since an “algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function” has not been provided in instant application Paragraph 0031 or in any part of the original disclosure.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection for Claims 1 & 5, Applicant argues the original disclosure provides “reasonable certainty” on the meaning of the term “significant increase” –see Applicant’s 09/11/2025 Remarks on Page 8. Examiner disagrees.
As described in the rejection above, there is no reasonable certainty. The original disclosure does not provide any definition for the term “significant increase”. As explained above, the term would not be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, since it is not clear how to interpret the term “permanent” which is used to insufficiently define the term “significant increase” in the original disclosure.
Regarding the 103 rejections for Claim 1 & 5, Applicant argues Anderson does not provide any details on how the torque vs motor speed estimates are used. Examiner agrees, at least within the context of the claimed structure, which is why Examiner relies on Ido and Ahola to apply the monitored torque vs motor speed to the starting operations of the pump.
Applicant continues to argue Ido does not detect anything, but relies on an external sensor and/or a user. Examiner disagrees with this statement. At best, Ido is silent on how the data described in the reference is monitored. Regardless, this point by Applicant is moot, since Ido is not relied on to teach detecting anything in the 103 rejection.,
Applicant continues to argue Examiner points to Ido Figure 1 –Point A— as the Ido teaching the derivative, but Ido does not teach anything being controlled at Point A. Examiner disagrees.
Examiner has not pointed to Point A as being a derivative. Examiner only stated Point A is where Ido defines flow as starting –see Ido Paragraph 0013. Ido Paragraph 0013 also states the inverter is reduced at Point A, which one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude is “something being controlled”.
Applicant continues to argue Ahola does not teach starting an operational pump ramp upon detecting a significant increase in the derivative of the monitored torque vs the speed of the motor. Examiner disagrees with this statement as described below.
Ahola is not used to teach starting an operational pump ramp. Ido is used to teach the operational pump ramp. Ahola is only relied on to teach that a significant increase in the derivative of the monitored torque vs the speed of the motor may be used to determine when the flow through the pump begins. This is clearly described by Aloha in Paragraphs 0024/0027/0028/0081, and shown in Figures 8/9.
In light of the above, it is clear the 103 rejections for the above claims are proper, and all rejections are maintained.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746