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 .
Status of the Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on April 29th, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on January 29th, 2026. Per Applicant's response, Claim 1 has been amended, Claims 21-24 have been newly-added, and Claims 11-20 have been cancelled. All other claims have been left in their previously-presented form. Consequently, Claims 1-10 & 21-24 now remain pending in the instant application. The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 8-10, & 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0257298 to Banus Garcia et al. (Garcia hereinafter).
In regard to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figure 5, Garcia discloses:
1. A system (Fig. 5; para. 44) for electronic pressure control of pumps (B1, B2) in a dual pump system (S; para. 44), the system comprising: a controller (P1, P2); a primary pump (B1) operated by the controller to maintain a system pressure in a flow path (“delivery manifold 1”; para. 44) at a first pressure setpoint (PMAX1) during a first operational mode of the system (Fig. 2; “Case 1”, wherein secondary pump B2 remains in standby; paras. 7-8 & 57-58); a pressure transducer (S1) reading the system pressure and providing the system pressure to the controller (as represented in Figs. 2-4); and a secondary pump (B2) that is maintained in a standby mode or shutoff mode when the system is in the first operational mode (Fig. 2; paras. 7-8 & 57-58; “the second pump did not start to operate”), the secondary pump being operated by the controller to supplement the primary pump (paras. 9 & 61; “the two pumps can satisfy the demand”) to maintain the system pressure at a second pressure setpoint (PMAX2), the second pressure setpoint being less that the first pressure setpoint (Figs. 1 & 3-4).
In regards to Claim 8, at least one of the primary pump and the secondary pump is an electronically pressure compensated pump (para. 10).
In regards to Claim 9, each of the primary pump and the secondary pump is an electronically pressure compensated pump (para. 10).
In regards to Claim 10, the controller (P1, P2) is a first controller (P1) associated with the primary pump (Fig. 5), and the system further comprises a second controller (P2) associated with the secondary pump (Fig. 5).
In regards to Claim 21, the primary pump is controlled to operate during normal operation of the system (as clearly shown in Fig. 2, wherein secondary pump B2 is not required).
In regards to Claim 22, the controller (P1, P2) is configured to dynamically adjust the first and second pressure setpoints based on a desired output pressure (paras. 46-63; “alternate their operation”; in other words, desired output pressure limits are alternated between the two pumps, and thus, controllers P1, P2 alternate their operations accordingly).
In regards to Claim 23, the secondary pump is controlled to operate in the standby mode or the shutoff mode when the system pressure is above a third setpoint pressure (PMIN1, or any other pressure value above PMIN1, including any pressure value between PMAX1 and PMAX2) that is less than the first pressure setpoint (Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 24, the third pressure setpoint is higher than the second pressure setpoint (as noted above for Claim 23, the third pressure setpoint reads on any pressure value between PMAX1 and PMAX2, all of which are higher than PMAX2)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (applied above) in view of US 2017/0138142 to Leach et al. (applied in previous office action).
In regards to Claim 3, Garcia discloses the system of claim 1, but does not further disclose a primary motor driving the primary pump, as claimed (Garcia makes no mention of any particular drive(s) for the two pumps in the system).
However, as noted in the previous office action, Leach et al. (Leach) discloses another pump system (Fig. 1; Abstract; "hydraulic power storage system") for electronic pressure control of pumps (54) in a dual pump system (two pump systems 54 shown in Fig. 1; "one or more hydraulic pumps 58"; para. 38), the system comprising: a controller (134); a primary pump (i.e. one of the pump systems 54) operated by the controller to maintain a system pressure in a flow path (seen in Fig. 1) at a first pressure setpoint ("at or between 4,000 psig and 5,000 psig"; "the target or threshold pressure"; para. 57) during a first operational mode of the system (i.e. only the primary pump operates when the demand is met; para. 57); a pressure transducer (130) reading the system pressure and providing the system pressure to the controller (paras. 56-57); and a secondary pump (the other of the pump systems 54) that is maintained in a standby mode or shutoff mode when the system is in the first operational mode (as noted above), the secondary pump being operated (“activating”) by the controller (para. 57) to maintain the system pressure at the first pressure setpoint (para. 57). Leach goes on to disclose a primary motor (70) driving the primary pump (para. 45; Figs. 2A-2B), and that via such a motor, pump speed can be varied (“increasing a rotational speed”; “decreasing a rotational speed”) to precisely match required demand (para. 57). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a dual pump system that can precisely meet demand via speed control, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Leach in combination with those seen in Garcia in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garcia’s pump control system with the speed-adjustable pump motors and associated speed control methodology taught in Leach in order to obtain predictable results; those results being improved pump pressure control.
In regards to Claim 4, Garcia as modified by Leach clearly results in the controller (P1, P2) operating the primary pump to maintain the system pressure at the first pressure setpoint by varying a first speed of the primary motor (via Leach’s teachings at paras. 54 & 57).
In regards to Claim 5, Leach further discloses a secondary motor (70) driving the secondary pump (para. 45; Figs. 2A-2B). The same would remain via the combination.
In regards to Claim 6, Garcia as modified by Leach clearly results in the controller (P1, P2) operating the secondary pump to maintain the system pressure at a second pressure setpoint by varying a second speed of the secondary motor (via Leach’s teachings at paras. 54 & 57).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (applied above) in view of US 2017/0138142 to Leach et al. (applied in previous office action) and US 2022/0326666 to Ubert et al. (applied in previous office action).
In regards to Claim 7, Garcia discloses the system of claim 1, but does not further disclose that the controller (P1, P2) performs both an outer loop monitoring the system pressure (via sensors S1 and an associated pressure feedback loop clearly described in para. 57) and an inner loop controlling at least one of a first speed of the primary pump and a second speed of the secondary pump
However, as noted in the previous office action, Leach (detailed above) teaches performing both an outer loop monitoring the system pressure (via sensor 130 and an associated pressure feedback loop clearly described in para. 57) and an inner loop controlling at least one of a first speed of the primary pump and a second speed of the secondary pump (via speed controllers 114 and associated inner loop monitoring speed data; see para. 67). However, while Leach’s controller 134 does monitor and control both system pressure and pump speeds, he does not specify his controller 134 is a PID controller specifically. However, Ubert et al. (Ubert) discloses yet another system for electronic pressure control of multiple pumps (Figs. 1-6; see Fig. 2, which depicts three pumps 204a-c, each of which includes a variable speed drive motor 103; paras. 69-70), wherein a PID controller (105, 115; Fig. 6) is utilized to adjust pump speed output (116) based on a desired pressure setpoint 110 (paras. 71 & 75). Ubert makes clear that through use of a PID-based controller, pumps, or other such devices, are turned on or off based on a determined optimized efficient way to operate the system. The result is a motor driven system that not only achieves the desired result by varying speed based on a Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controller speed determination, but which does so by optimizing efficiency. This novel functionality reduces energy consumption, reduces mechanical strain, and saves significant amounts of money in energy and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs (para. 9). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a more efficient pump control system, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Leach and Ubert in combination with those seen in Garcia in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garcia’s controller (P1, P2) with the PID-based controller and associated feedback loops disclosed in Ubert and Leach, respectively, in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a pump load/speed control system that provide optimized efficiency, reduced energy consumption, and reduced mechanical strain.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments filed April 29th, 2026 have 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 ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC
Prosecution Insights