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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 January 2026 has been entered.
Claims 17-22 and 24-33 are pending in the application. Claims 17, 22, 24, 28 and 33 have been amended. Claim 23 has been cancelled.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections of claims 22, 24-30, 32 and 33 are hereby withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are overcome by the amendments to independent claim 17.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 22, lines 3-7 of the amended changes, the phrase “and the amplitude the current iq,” should be reworded to --and the amplitude of the current iq--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 17-20 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Discenzo et al., (European Patent Application No. EP 1298511).1
As to claim 17, Discenzo et al. discloses of a method for identifying a fault in an impeller blockage in a centrifugal pump (FIG.’s 2A & 15, Abstract, para. 0034, centrifugal pump; and para. 0066, ”pump faults could include cavitation blockage, two-phase flow, impeller wear…” etc.) comprising:
obtaining three-phase motor current measurements from a three-phase drive motor 16 of the centrifugal pump 14 (para. 0028) during operation of the centrifugal pump 14 using current sensors 49 of the centrifugal pump (FIG. 19, para.’s 0051-0053. “a current signal associated with the motor 16 from sensor 49, and calculate a space vector from the current signal. … system 70 determines a space vector angular fluctuation from the space vector, and analyzes the space vector angular fluctuation in order to detect one or more faults associated with the motor 16 …. first, second, and third phase current signals associated with the motorized system 12 may be sampled in order to obtain the current signal”):
determining the fault frequency fr,pump of at least one fault-indicating harmonic of a motor current on the basis of a fault model (refer to an Annotated copy of FIG. 15 attached below, identified as box B, frequency Fs; see also para. para. 0042, disclosing pump modelling options, CNETS etc.; and para. 0066, fault signatures related to pump operation; and para. 0069, detailing algorithm steps depicted in FIG. 15), wherein the centrifugal pump 14 has a three-phase drive motor 16 (para. 0028);
calculating a harmonic amplitude if of the motor current for the at least one determined fault frequency fr,pump (Annotated FIG. 15, box B, multiples of Fs form harmonics broadly, more on these calculations below) by transforming the three-phase motor current into a dq current coordinate system that contains currents id and iq and rotates at the fault frequency fr,pump, (FIG. 27, para.’s 0092-0097, inter alia, detailing calculations, equations and algorithms for transforming to rotating coordinate system and components Id, Iq in the manner claimed) wherein
a geometric sum of direct components of the currents id and iq in the dq current coordinate system corresponds to the harmonic amplitude (para. 0098, “resultant space vector is the sum of the fundamental and additional components corresponding to space vectors,” __interpreted as equivalent to the recited geometric sum of direct components of the currents); and
monitoring, during a running time of the pump 14, the calculated harmonic amplitude (Annotated FIG. 15, box B) is and/or a load-independent severity factor SF, wherein finding the anomaly comprises determining that the calculated harmonic amplitude if and/or-the load independent severity factor SF deviates from a reference value or exceeds a limit value (para. 0053, “[a] resulting space vector may then be calculated, for example, by summing the first, second, and third phase space vectors … diagnostics system 70 may then compare the space vector with a reference space vector, wherein the reference space vector is a function of a constant frequency and amplitude, and compute angular fluctuations in the space vector according to the comparison, in order to determine the space vector angular fluctuation,“ __interpreted as finding the anomaly from amplitude/severity factor deviation from reference value in the manner claimed), and upon finding an anomaly in the calculated harmonic amplitude is and/or the load-independent severity factor SF outputting a fault message and/or triggering an intervention in a pump controller configured to control the centrifugal pump 14 (para.’s 0014-0019, broadly controlling system, i. e, triggering an intervention, based upon anomaly or fault).
PNG
media_image1.png
850
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Discenzo FIG. 15
As to claim 18, Discenzo further discloses the at least one fault frequency fr,pump is calculated based on a stator frequency of the drive motor and a number of pole pairs of the stator, in particular according to the claimed expression related fr,pump to pole pairs of the stator, motor slip and stator frequency (refer to Box C in Annotated FIG. 15, the indicated algorithm/expressions in box C are interpreted as equivalent to the claimed expression).
As to claim 19, Discenzo further discloses direct components of transformed currents id and iq are ascertained using a low-pass filter (FIG. 7, para. 0056, discussing filtering options including band pass 102 and low pass filters 110), or a first-order low-pass filter, or a first-order Butterworth filter.
As to claim 20, Discenzo further discloses the transformation into the dq current coordinate system is performed via Park transformation in accordance with the claimed relationships (para.’s 0096-0098, while the Park transformation is not mentioned per se, Discenzo contemplates calculating space vector representations of the motor currents using equivalent mathematical relationships that are functions of the claimed variables, angular velocity, and fault frequency thereby meeting the claim).
As to claim 33, Discenzo further discloses the method is carried out on a pump controller 18 (FIG. 2A, para. 0029) that is configured to control the centrifugal pump 14 microprocessor unit 70 (para.’s 0087-0088, part of control system 66) of a centrifugal pump 232a-d using current sensors 49 (para. 0052) already present in the pump, and upon detecting a deviation of a calculated severity factor from a reference value, the method automatically outputs a fault message and/or triggers an intervention in the pump controller to avoid consequential damage (see p. 25, claims 36-38, inter alia, “the controller automatically adjusting operation of the motorized system based at in part on prognosed future states,” __interpreted as triggering an intervention in the pump controller in the manner claimed).
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 21, 24-30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Discenzo et al. (European Patent Application No. EP 1298511) in view of Trumper et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0029567).
As to claim 21, Discenzo is discussed above but is silent as to the transformation of the three-phase motor current into a space-vector representation in a stator coordinate system is performed by a Clarke transformation, wherein the space vector is determined by an existing control element of a pump controller configured to control the centrifugal pump, which control element carries out field-oriented control. To this point, Trumper teaches a motor control system (FIG. 1, Abstract) using field-oriented control techniques (para. 0093) with a controller that transforms the three-phase current using the Clarke transformation (para. 0076). The Clarke transformation is a common mathematical technique for analyzing three-phase vector components.2 With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Discenzo’s method to use field-oriented control techniques and the Clarke transformation __well known mathematical techniques in analyzing three-phase vector components for use in motor current control as taught by Trumper (Abstract, inter alia).
As to claim 24, Discenzo discloses the method is carried out on an integral microprocessor unit 70 of the pump 14, a running time of the pump (as understood) thoughout a running time of the pump.
As to claim 25, Discenzo further discloses an external central evaluation unit 66, and wherein two or more centrifugal pumps 232A-232D (FIG. 24, para. 0087) transmit their calculated values for the harmonic amplitude iF and/or the severity factor SF to the evaluation unit 66 to identify fault (para. 0088).
As to claim 26, Discenzo further discloses the central evaluation unit 66 compares two or more of the received values with one another in order to identify anomalies and to detect a fault, (Id., broadly as understood, data comparisons would be inherent in Discenzo’s fault signature detection and processing).
As to claim 27, Discenzo further discloses that in addition to the values for the harmonic amplitude iF and/or the severity factor SF, further operating parameters of the pump including the speed n and/or the operating point of the pump and/or a temperature value and/or the service life or running time of the pump are transmitted (para. 0036, control based on speed, outlet pressure, flow rate, etc.).
As to claim 28, Discenzo further discloses the evaluation unit 66 compares the received values for the harmonic amplitude in and the severity factor SF with one another and wherein the evaluation unit uses only the operating parameters of which are identical or the operating parameters which are in a predefined range (Id., intuitively or inherently, any comparison of parameters would be based upon comparing identical values operating in identifiable ranges3).
As to claim 29, Discenzo is silent as to the evaluation unit being a cloud-based solution. However, providing a remote or distributed processing model, i. e., a cloud-based solution, to host Discenzo’s diagnostic system 70 over a network would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art and is commonly done in almost all industries. With this in mind, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to host Discenzo’s system in the cloud, over a network in order to consolidate computer processing accordingly.
As to claim 30, Discenzo is expressly silent as to generating a service task for the relevant pump when a fault is detected. However, once it was known to detect faults and use them to control or alert a user, generating a service task per se would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 32, Discenzo discloses a system 530 (FIG.’s 2A, & 24, para.’s 0087-0088) comprising at least two centrifugal pumps 232A-232D and at least one central evaluation unit 66 having a processor 70 (part of control system 66) which is configured to carry out the method as claimed in claim 25 (as set forth in the rejection of claim 25 above).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Discenzo et al., (European Patent Application No. EP 1298511).
As to claim 31, Disenzo discloses a circulation pump 14 (FIG. 2A, para. 0028) having a three-phase motor 16 (para. 0028), and a microprocessor unit 66, 70, 71 (para. 0027, control system 66, controller 71 and diagnostics system 70) which is configured to carry out the method as claimed in 17 (as set forth in the rejection of claim 17, supra). Discenzo is silent as to the motor being a synchronous permanent magnet motor. Discenzo specifies a polyphase synchronous motor (para. 0028) but also states that other types of motors can be used. With this in mind, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a three-phase permanent magnet synchronous motor __a motor configuration known to provide predictable motor drive performance with expected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 22, the prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or fairly suggest the method of claim 17 including the limitations of claims 19-21 further wherein a load independent severity factor SF is ascertained based on the claimed ratio.
The prior art does not contemplate calculating the claimed severity factor in combination with the limitations in the intervening claims. It is the Examiner’s opinion that modification of the applied art in the manner claimed is not foreseeable without the benefit of the disclosure of the instant invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections over Discenzo and the applied art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments have necessitated reinterpretation of Discenzo and its mapping to the claimed subject matter as set forth in the statement of the rejections, supra.
Applicant asserts, on pp. 9-11 of the response, that Discenzo in para.’s 0014-0019 does not disclose Applicant’s claimed features. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to be focusing on Discenzo not literally using the same terminology recited in the instant claims. However, Discenzo provides equivalent monitoring and calculation functions, using different terms for calculated harmonic amplitude or severity factor as set for the in the statement of the rejections above, at least according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms. To this point, Applicant appears to be reading in features disclosed in the specification that are not necessarily being claimed. For example, on p. 10 of the response, Applicant asserts that Discenzo “does not disclose the specific normalized/reference-or-limit comparison decision step recited by the amended claim, nor the claimed causal linkage from that decision step to fault messaging and/or controller intervention.” However, the instant claims do not require such a comparison step. These assertions must fail.
Applicant argues on p. 12 of the response that “Trumper is not directed to centrifugal pumps, impeller blockage, or any current-based pump-fault monitoring architecture.” “Instead, Trumper discloses a bearingless motor system with rotation windings and suspension windings, a rotor, position sensors that measure radial and angular rotor position, and a controller that generates current commands to stabilize/levitate and rotate the rotor.” “Consistent with that focus, Trumper's controller and sensors are used for closed-loop levitation/torque control based on rotor position measurements, not for monitoring a calculated fault-indicating harmonic amplitude at a pump fault frequency, not for deriving/using a load-independent severity factor, and not for thresholding those calculated values against a reference/limit to declare an anomaly and then output a fault message or trigger intervention.” Applicant appears to suggest the Trumper is non-analogous art. However, Trumper is cited for its general motor control teachings of transforming motor current vectors into three-phase elements using the well known Clarke transformation. This mathematical operation is known for use in motor controls using filed oriented control techniques. To this point, Trumper is in the same problem domain, i. e., how to separate motor currents and use the information for control of a motor, arguably similar to the problem that Applicant is facing here. This argument is also not persuasive. Trumper’s teachings are analogously applicable to Discenzo and the instant invention.
Applicant has not presented any substantive arguments with regard to the rejections of the remaining dependent claims over the art of record including the combinations of proposed modification, rationale, or motivations to make those combinations. Applicant simply asserts that they are allowable for the same reasons made for the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM (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.
/KENNETH J HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
1 Cited in the IDS filed 20 February 2024.
2 Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha%E2%80%93beta_transformation.
3 “Comparing apples to apples” so to speak.