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 .
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) 1-4, 8-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chavis et al. (US 20210348614) in view of Fujita et al. (CN 110649830 B) and Mao (US 20170222426).
As to claim 1, Chavis et al.’s figures 1 and 2 show a pump system comprising a power source (40); a pump unit (30) including a pump (pump 36) and a motor (32); a motor drive (100) disposed remotely relative to the pump unit; and a cable (34) connecting the motor drive to the motor; the motor drive comprising: a rectifier (120) coupled to the power source and configured to convert alternating current ("AC") voltage from the power source into a direct current ("DC") output voltage (Vdc) having a +DC line and a -DC line; an inverter (130) coupled to the rectifier and configured to convert the DC output voltage of the rectifier into an approximated AC output voltage. The figures fail to show that the drive circuit comprises a clamp filter as claimed. However, Fujita et al.’s figure 1 shows a similar motor driver that comprises clamp filter (30) it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a clamp filter in Chavis et al.’s drive circuit or use Fujita et al.’s motor driver for Chavis et al.’s drive circuit for the purpose of improving the pump reliability. Therefore, the modified Chavis et al.’s figures further show that the clamp filter (Fujita et al.’s 30) coupled to the inverter configured to attenuate high voltage ring up and reflections developed at input terminals of the motor; wherein the clamp filter includes for each phase of the approximated AC output voltage, an inductor(31u, 31v and 31w), a resistor (Ru, Rv and Rw), a first diode (D32, D34, D36) having an anode and a cathode and a second diode (D31, D33 and D35) having an anode and a cathode, the inductor having an input side connected to the AC output voltage and an output side connected to an input side of the resistor, the resistor having an output side connected to the cathode of the first diode and the anode of the second diode, the anode of the first diode of each phase being connected to a common point, and the cathode of the second diode being connected to the +DC line. The modified Chavis et al.’s figures fail to show a surge protector connected between the clamp filter and the cable. However, Mao’s ¶0004 teaches that “[a] surge protection device, comprising one or more metal-oxide varistors (MOVs), is usually connected between phase line and ground line (or neutral line) to release the energy from over-voltage.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further include surge protection device(s) coupled between Chavis et al.’s cable line(s) and ground for the purpose of release energy at the cable from over voltage. Thus, the modified Chavis et al.’s figures show that the surge protector including a first metal oxide varistor (one of the “one or more MOVs, see Mao’s ¶0004) having an input side connected to the output side of the inductor and an output side connected to an input side of a common metal oxide varistor (another one of the “one or more MOVs”), an output side of the common varistor being connected to earth ground; wherein the resistor has a resistance value that when multiplied by an expected maximum surge current (there is no definition of “expected maximum surge current”. Therefore, any surge current value can be considered as the “expected maximum surge current”) is greater than a clamp voltage of the surge protector.
As to claim 2, the Chavis et al.’s figures show that the rectifier is configured to covert three-phase AC voltage from the power source.
As to claim 3, the modified Chavis et al.’s figures show that the inverter is configured to convert the DC output voltage of the rectifier into an approximated three-phase AC output voltage.
As to claim 4. The modified Chavis et al.’s figures show that the clamp filter includes, for each phase of the approximated three-phase AC output voltage, an inductor, a resistor, a first diode having an anode and a cathode and a second diode having an anode and a cathode, the inductor having an input side connected to one phase of the approximated three-phase AC output voltage and an output side connected to an input side of the resistor, the resistor having an output side connected to the cathode of the first diode and the anode of the second diode, the anode of the first diode of each phase being connected to the common point, and the cathode of the second diode being connected to the +DC line.
As to claim 8, the modified Chavis et al.’s figures show a capacitor (Fujita et al.’s 22) having a first end connected to the +DC line and a second end connected to the -DC line, the capacitor being configured to smooth ripples on the DC output voltage of the rectifier.
As to claim 9, the modified Chavis et al.’s figures show that the pump unit is a deep well pump unit.
As to claim 10, selecting the length of the cable to be approximately 25 feet and 1,000 feet is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 11-12 and 14 recite similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 7, 16-23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chavis et al. in view of Fujita et al. (CN 110649830 B), Mao et al. (US 20170222426) and Horvat (US 20240322721).
As to claims 7 and 16, the modified Chavis et al.’s figures fail to show that the current sense circuit 123 comprises a resistor. However, Horvat’s figure 3 shows a similar circuit that its current sense circuit 44 comprises resistor R1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use resistor for Chavis et al.’s current sense circuit 123 for the purpose of saving cost. Thus, the modified Chavis et al.’s figures show a current sense shunt resistor (Horvat’s R1) having a first end connected to the -DC line and a second end connected to the common point of the clamp filter to detect a failure of at least one of the first diode and the second diode.
Claims 17-23 and 25 recite similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
There is no definition of “expected maximum surge current” in the claim and specification. Therefore, any surge current value can be considered as the “expected maximum surge current”.
Conclusion
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 ANH-QUAN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-1755. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.
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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at 571-272-1988. 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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2842