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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 6th, 2025.
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) 1-6 & 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0138142 to Leach et al.
In regard to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figure 1, Leach et al. (Leach) discloses:
1. A 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); 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) operated by the controller (para. 57) to maintain the system pressure at a second pressure setpoint (i.e. a pressure value less than the first pressure setpoint; “if a pressure within the hydraulic power storage system(s), as indicated in data captured by one or more sensors 130, falls below the target or threshold pressure, one or more hydraulic power production systems 54 may be controlled to increase the pressure within the hydraulic power storage system(s), for example, via one or more electric motor speed controllers 114 activating or increasing a rotational speed of one or more electric motors 70 coupled to one or more hydraulic pumps 58”; para. 57), the second pressure setpoint being less that the first pressure setpoint (“pressure within the hydraulic power storage system(s), as indicated in data captured by one or more sensors 130, falls below the target or threshold pressure”; para. 57).
In regards to Claim 2, the controller operates the secondary pump in a standby mode (a standby (i.e. un-activated) mode for the second pump 54 is clearly indicated in para. 57; “if a pressure within the hydraulic power storage system(s), as indicated in data captured by one or more sensors 130, falls below the target or threshold pressure, one or more hydraulic power production systems 54 may be controlled to increase the pressure within the hydraulic power storage system(s), for example, via one or more electric motor speed controllers 114 activating or increasing a rotational speed of one or more electric motors 70 coupled to one or more hydraulic pumps 58”).
In regards to Claim 3, Leach discloses a primary motor (70) driving the primary pump (para. 45; Figs. 2A-2B).
In regards to Claim 4, the controller operates the primary pump to maintain the system pressure at the first pressure setpoint by varying a first speed of the primary motor (paras. 54 & 57).
In regards to Claim 5, Leach discloses a secondary motor (70) driving the secondary pump (para. 45; Figs. 2A-2B).
In regards to Claim 6, Leach discloses that the controller operates the secondary pump to maintain the system pressure at a second pressure setpoint by varying a second speed of the secondary motor (para. 57).
In regards to Claim 8, at least one of the primary pump and the secondary pump is an electronically pressure compensated pump (para. 57).
In regards to Claim 9, each of the primary pump and the secondary pump is an electronically pressure compensated pump (para. 57).
In regards to Claim 10, the controller (134) is a first controller (i.e. processor) associated with the primary pump (para. 57), and the system further comprises a second controller (i.e. speed controller 114) associated with the secondary pump (para. 57 & Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 1-5 & 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0014987 to Garcia et al.
In regard to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 1-2, Garcia et al. (Garcia) discloses:
1. A system (Figs. 1-2) for electronic pressure control of pumps (2, 9) in a dual pump system (“a main pump and at least one auxiliary pump”; Abstract), the system comprising: a controller (8); a primary pump (2; “a conventional main electric pump”; para. 14) operated by the controller to maintain a system pressure in a flow path (paras. 15 & 19-20; Figs. 1-2) at a first pressure setpoint (“a pre-determined pressure value, considered as the working pressure value”; para. 20); a pressure transducer (5) reading the system pressure and providing the system pressure to the controller (para. 15); and a secondary pump (9; “two auxiliary electric pumps”; para. 14) operated by the controller (paras. 15 & 19-20) to maintain the system pressure at a second pressure setpoint (“pressure has dropped below a pre-determined pressure value”; para. 20), the second pressure setpoint being less that the first pressure setpoint (“pressure has dropped below a pre-determined pressure value”; para. 20).
In regards to Claim 2, the controller operates the secondary pump in a standby mode (a standby mode for pump 9 is clearly indicated in para. 20; “When the control equipment detects that the pressure has dropped below a pre-determined pressure value, considered as the working pressure value, in such a way that the main pump does not give the values required, the first auxiliary pump is brought into use”).
In regards to Claim 3, Garcia discloses a primary motor driving the primary pump (Fig. 2 & para. 14 clearly depict and disclose respective electric drive sources (i.e. motors) for each pump).
In regards to Claim 4, the controller operates the primary pump to maintain the system pressure at the first pressure setpoint by varying a first speed of the primary motor (paras. 5, 20; “a frequency changer to regulate the flow speed that flows through a hydraulic pipe associated to the main pump, an electronic control circuit electrically connected to the pressure transducer, to the flow detector so that based on the signals received from them, it sends a signal to the frequency changer to change the working parameters of the main pump and at least one auxiliary pump, remaining the pressure value unchanged”; “frequency changer (7) will increase or reduce the performance of the main pump in line with the needs, at all times maintaining an unchanged pressure inside the hydraulic circuit”).
In regards to Claim 5, Garcia discloses a secondary motor driving the secondary pump (Fig. 2 & para. 14 clearly depict and disclose respective electric drive sources (i.e. motors) for each pump).
In regards to Claim 8, at least one of the primary pump and the secondary pump is an electronically pressure compensated pump (paras. 15 & 20; “an electronic control circuit (8), all of them are represented diagrammatically, electrically connected to the pressure transducer (5), to the flow detector (6), so that on the basis of the signals received from them it sends a signal to the frequency changer (7) to regulate the working parameters of the main electrical pump (2) and the two auxiliary electric pumps (9)”).
In regards to Claim 9, each of the primary pump and the secondary pump is an electronically pressure compensated pump (paras. 15 & 20; “an electronic control circuit (8), all of them are represented diagrammatically, electrically connected to the pressure transducer (5), to the flow detector (6), so that on the basis of the signals received from them it sends a signal to the frequency changer (7) to regulate the working parameters of the main electrical pump (2) and the two auxiliary electric pumps (9)”).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leach (applied above) in view of US 2022/0326666 to Ubert et al.
In regards to Claim 7, Leach discloses the system of claim 1, including that the controller (134) performs 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 Ubert in combination with those seen in Leaach 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 Leach’s controller 134 with the PID-based control disclosed in Ubert in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a pump speed control system that provide optimized efficiency, reduced energy consumption, and reduced mechanical strain (as taught in Ubert).
Conclusion
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