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
Applicant’s amendment filed March 16, 2026 has been entered. Claims 3–4 and 11–12 are canceled. Claims 1, 5, 9, and 13 are amended. Claims 1–2, 5–10, and 13–17 are pending and under examination. The previous rejections of record are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 16, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) over McTighe (US 10,424,911 B2) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to claim 1, which now incorporate the duty cycle limitation of canceled claim 4. Accordingly, the prior 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 4 over McTighe alone, in particular Applicant’s contention that In re Aller optimization is improper because McTighe does not recognize duty cycle as a result-effective variable, have been considered. Upon further consideration of MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B) and In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977), Examiner agrees that the prior rejection did not establish that duty cycle was recognized in the prior art as a variable affecting leakage detection or safety. The prior 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection over McTighe alone is therefore withdrawn.
However, the amended claims remain unpatentable in view of the new combination of references set forth below. Konrad (US5945802) expressly teaches connecting an immersed electric motor to a power supply during a brief test pulse prior to sustained energization for the purpose of leakage detection, and expressly recognizes pulse duration as a result-effective variable affecting fault current magnitude and damage prevention. The deficiencies identified by Applicant in the prior rejection are addressed by Konrad.
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, 2, 5-10, 13-16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over MCTIGHE(US10424911B2) in view of KONRAD(US5945802A).
Regarding claim 1, McTighe teaches a method for electric leakage safety of an electric motor(145) immersed in water(135) and being connected to a power supply(120), wherein the method uses a protection system(105,110,115,125), wherein the protection system comprises: a sensor arrangement(125 comprising sensors 140a-d) operable to measure an electrical potential in the water surrounding the immersed electric motor(145) and to output a sensor signal comprising information about the measured electrical potential(Para[0020]); a control unit(115 connected to 105) operable to receive said sensor signal, wherein the control unit(115) is further operable to control the power supply(120) connected to the electric motor(145) by means of a control signal(from 115); the method comprising: connecting the power supply(120) to the electric motor(145); measuring with the sensor arrangement(140a-d) the electrical potential; disconnecting the power supply(120) from the immersed electric motor(145) by means of said control signal(from 115) when the electric potential is above, or equal to, a threshold value indicative of an electric leakage(Para[0021]).
McTighe is silent wherein the step of connecting the power supply to the electric motor comprises connecting the electric motor to the power supply during a first period of time tOn corresponding to a duty cycle smaller than 1%.
Konrad teaches a method of leakage safety for an electric motor(2, 40) immersed in water in a deep well pumping system, comprising connecting the electric motor to the power supply during a first period of time tOn(Col. 4, ll. 32-43 and Col. 5, ll. 1-14; “each time before the motor is started, each switching device connected to the negative voltage bus is gated with a test pulse of relatively short duration”, the gating of switching devices 34, 36, 38 effecting connection of the power supply to the motor windings for the duration of each test pulse) corresponding to a duty cycle smaller than 1%(Col. 4, ll. 36-43 and Col. 5, ll. 5-14; test pulses of approximately 2 microseconds, with no greater than 1 millisecond, applied as a one-time pre-energization test sequence prior to sustained motor operation, such that the energized test interval is far less than 1% of motor operation).
Konrad is analogous art at because it is from the same field of endeavor of leakage detection and protection for an electric motor immersed in water. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of McTighe such that the step of connecting the power supply to the electric motor comprises connecting the electric motor to the power supply during a first period of time tOn corresponding to a duty cycle smaller than 1%, as taught by Konrad. One would do this in order to limit fault current exposure during the leakage detection phase and to prevent damage to the motor and associated electronics in the event a low impedance leakage path is present.
Regarding claims 2/1 and 10/9, McTighe in view of Konrad teaches the method/protection system according to claim 1/9.
McTighe further teaches wherein the threshold value is based on historical sensor signals(Para[0021]; inherent that a predetermined threshold value would be based on historical sensor signals).
Regarding claim 5/1 and 13/9, McTighe in view of Konrad teaches the method/protection system according to claim 1/9.
McTighe is silent wherein the first period of time (tOn) is smaller than 100 us.
Konrad teaches the first period of time (tOn) is smaller than 100 us(Col. 4, ll. 36-37 and Col. 5, ll. 5-14; “the initial gating pulses have a duration less than about one millisecond and are desirably about two microseconds”; two microseconds is smaller than 100 microseconds). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first period of time (tOn) be smaller than 100 us, as taught by Konrad, in order to limit fault current to a level that prevents damage to the switching devices and motor in the event a low impedance leakage path exists (Col. 4, ll. 38-43). Furthermore, Konrad recognizes pulse duration as a result-effective variable, and discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 6/5 and 14/9, McTighe in view of Konrad teaches the method/protection system according to claim 5/9.
McTighe in view of Konrad does not explicitly teach providing the sensor arrangement electrically isolated from the electric motor at distance (d) smaller than 20 cm (claim 6) / the sensor arrangement is electrically isolated from the electric motor at distance (d) smaller than 20 cm from the electric motor (claim 14).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sensor arrangement electrically isolated from the electric motor at a distance (d) smaller than 20 cm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). One would be motivated to do this in order to keep the sensors close enough to accurately detect leakage without delay.
Regarding claim 7/6 and 15/14, McTighe in view of Konrad teaches the method/protection system according to claim 6/14.
McTighe in view of Konrad does not explicitly teach wherein the distance (d) is smaller than 10 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the distance (d) be smaller than 10 cm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). One would be motivated to do this in order to keep the sensors close enough to accurately detect leakage without delay.
Regarding claim 8/7 and 16/15, McTighe in view of Konrad teaches the method/protection system according to claim 7/15.
McTighe in view of Konrad does not explicitly teach wherein the distance (d) is smaller than 5 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the distance (d) be smaller than 5 cm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). One would be motivated to do this in order to keep the sensors close enough to accurately detect leakage without delay.
Regarding claim 9, McTighe teaches a protection system(105,110,115,125) for electric leakage safety of an electric motor(145) immersed in water(135) and being connected to a power supply(120), wherein the protection system(105,110,115,125) comprises: a sensor arrangement(125 comprising sensors 140a-d) operable to measure an electrical potential in the water surrounding the immersed electric motor(145) and to output a sensor signal comprising information about the measured electrical potential(Para[0020]); a control unit(115 connected to 105) operable to receive said sensor signal, wherein the control unit(115) is further operable to control the power supply(120) connected to the electric motor(145) by means of a control signal(from 115); the control unit is operable to generate a control signal that causes a connection of the power supply(120) to the electric motor(145); and measure with the sensor arrangement(140a-d) the electrical potential and when the measured electric potential is above, or equal to, a threshold value generate a control signal(from 115) that disconnects the power supply(120) from the immersed electric motor(145)(Para[0021]).
McTighe is silent wherein the connection of the power supply to the electric motor comprises a connection of the electric motor to the power supply during a first period of time (tOn) corresponding to a duty cycle smaller than 1%.
Konrad teaches a protection system that effects connection of the electric motor to the power supply during a first period of time (tOn)(Col. 4, ll. 32-43; pre-energization test pulses applied to motor switching devices to effect brief connection of the power supply to the motor windings) corresponding to a duty cycle smaller than 1%(Col. 4, ll. 36-43 and Col. 5, ll. 5-14; test pulses of approximately 2 microseconds applied as a one-time pre-energization test sequence prior to sustained motor operation, yielding a duty cycle far below 1% relative to motor operation; “the gating pulse to each of the negative switching devices is of a sufficiently short duration to prevent any fault current from reaching a level which would damage the switching device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protection system of McTighe such that the connection of the power supply to the electric motor comprises a connection of the electric motor to the power supply during a first period of time (tOn) corresponding to a duty cycle smaller than 1%, as taught by Konrad. One would do this in order to limit fault current exposure during the leakage detection phase and to prevent damage to the motor and associated electronics in the event a low impedance leakage path is present
Regarding claim 17/9, McTighe in view of Konrad teaches the protection system according to claim 9.
McTighe further teaches a boat(Para[0002]) comprising: an immersible electric motor(145); a power supply for powering the immersible electric motor(120); and a protection system(105,110,115,125).
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 571-272-2098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights