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
A response to the species election requirement adding new claims 21-33 and canceling claims 8-20 has been filed.
In the response, Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 9 October 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 and 21-33 are indicated to encompass the elected invention. However, the amendments have added new claims to non-elected species as set forth herein below.
Species Election Requirement for New Claims
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species I: The pump motor control scheme set forth in FIG. 11.
Species III*1: The pump motor control scheme set forth in FIG. 13.
The species are independent or distinct because of the following reasons:
Species I involves mutually exclusive control elements and steps involving
monitoring and repeatedly adjusting voltage-frequency ratio to operate the pump
motor at greater efficiencies not expressly required in the other species.
Species III involves mutually exclusive control elements and steps
involving adjusting operating motor drive voltage-frequency ratios, monitoring
power including specific algorithmic procedures not required in the other species.
In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claims appear to be generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
The species of patentably indistinct species require different fields of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Election in Response to New Claims
During a telephone conversation with Joseph Ziebert on 12 January 2026, an election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species I, drawn to claims 1-7 and new claims 21-29. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claims 30-33 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-6 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 3 and 24, the limitation: “adjusting a combined value equal to an uncompensated voltage divided by a current operating frequency and calculating the adjusted operating voltage by multiplying the combined value by the current operating frequency, wherein the adjusted operating voltage is based on the uncompensated voltage” is indefinite because it is not clear how the result of the calculation modifies the compensated voltage in the manner intended by the invention. To this point, carrying out the math in the claim results in Vadjusted = Vuncompensated because the current operating frequency is first divided by then multiplied, effectively cancelling it out. Use of the terms adjusting a combined value by and then calculating the adjusted operating voltage is confusing in that it is not clear if these are mathematical operations performed in sequence or a generic description of the steps. This renders the metes and bounds of the claim subject to uncertainty because it is not clear how it recites what Applicant regards as the invention compared to the description in the specification.2 Clarification and correction is required. For examination, it will be interpreted broadly as a unity result.
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 1-3, 5-7, 21-24 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoefel et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0045055).
Regarding claim 1, Hoefel discloses a system for efficiently running a pump driven by a motor (FIG.’s 1-16, Abstract, multiple ESP pump control schemes and embodiments disclosed), the system comprising:
one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors 230, 701-704 (FIG.’s 2 & 7, para. 0044, inter alia, controller system having processor and memory), cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving a desired operating rotational speed of the motor (para. 0070, “a target speed a closed loop speed controlled operation may be implemented using motor speed related to pump flow and actuation torque related to load pressure”, target speed is a desired operating rotation speed for the controller);
receiving motor electrical data related to current signals and voltage signals of a drive connected to the motor (FIG. 11, para. 0108-0111, inter alia, control blocks showing motor electrical data including Phase Currents and Vabc fed back in system for speed control in a PI Speed Control from the PWM drive, __receiving motor electrical data in the manner claimed);
calculating an estimated rotational speed of the motor using the motor electrical data (Id., Estimated Speed from Speed and Torque Position Track, as shown in control blocks);
adjusting an operating voltage of the drive connected to the motor to obtain an adjusted operating voltage (Id., note V (voltage) signals input into PWM control blocks, __interpreted as adjusting operating voltage accordingly);
adjusting an operating frequency of the drive to control the estimated rotational speed of the motor to the desired operating rotational speed in response to changes to the estimated rotational speed from adjustments to the operating voltage (para.’s 0120-0122, “a strategy for induction motor open loop ramp up may be based on scalar methods where voltage is ramped up proportional to the frequency ramp up of the excitation,” frequency ramp up indicates adjusting operating frequency; note also that a PWM control inherently adjusts operating frequency based upon voltage to control motor speed3);
monitoring an electrical power consumed by the drive resulting from the adjusted operating voltage and adjusting the operating frequency (para.’s 0049 & 0075, “For VSD units, the UNICONN™ motor controller can monitor VSD output current, ESP running current, VSD output voltage, supply voltage, VSD input and VSD output power,” monitoring power accordingly); and
performing additional adjustments to the operating voltage and the operating frequency in a systematic manner to affect the motor to operate at a higher efficiency while controlling the estimated rotational speed of the motor to the desired operating rotational speed (FIG. 11, para. 0064, inter aiia, “system may be implemented with circuitry that can estimate downhole pump rate … implement speed control to reduce shaft oscillation 605; efficiently run a motor (e.g., on a long cable) with better motor efficiency and less cable losses 606,“ __system controller implementations using PI Controllers operating in real time to track speed that involve making discrete adjustments to operating voltage and frequency (PWM signals), interpreted as performing additional adjustments as claimed thereby operating motor at higher efficiencies, thus meeting the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms).
Re. claim 2, Hoefel further discloses adjusting the operating frequency is performed by a proportional-integral controller (FIG. 11, para. 0120, inter alia, PI Controller adjusting V and I to drive PWM controller adjusting operating frequency accordingly).
Re. claim 3, Hoefel further discloses performing the additional adjustments comprises adjusting a combined value equal to an uncompensated voltage divided by a current operating frequency and calculating the adjusted operating voltage by multiplying the combined value by the current operating frequency, wherein the adjusted operating voltage is based on the uncompensated voltage (para. 0082, disclosing compensated voltage calculation equivalent to the recited calculation as currently understood4).
Re. claim 5, Hoefel further discloses estimating a cable voltage drop to obtain an estimated cable voltage drop (para. 0082), wherein the adjusted operating voltage is calculated by adding the estimated cable voltage drop to the uncompensated voltage (equation indicated effectively adds estimated voltage drop based upon Zcable * Iphase which is an estimated voltage drop (V=I*R)).
Re. claim 6, Hoefel further discloses calculating an asymmetric voltage to compensate for asymmetries in the cable voltage drop as the operating frequency and operating voltages are adjusted (para. 0085,”an approach may consider compensation of the unsymmetrical portion of the cable drop … an approach can include compensating for the unsymmetrical part of the cable impedance,” effectively equivalent to calculating an asymmetric voltage in the claimed manner ).
Re. claim 7, Hoefel further discloses determining the desired operating rotational speed of the pump comprises performing an optimization using an objective function comprising at least one of pump efficiency or pump vibration (para.’s 0064-0071, inter alia, discussing various method and models of operating the ESP to compensate for cable losses due to asymmetries in order to logically allow high efficiency operation with less cable losses interpreted as optimization using an objective function comprising at least one of pump efficiency under broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms, e. g., cable models 1140, 1240, are considered to be objective functions used to adjust controller inputs driving PWM drive5) .
Re. claim 21, Hoefel further discloses in the desired operating rotational speed is based on a desired pressure and flow of the pump (para. 0136,”the pump rate may be a fluid flow rate … a fluid flow rate may be determined at least in part on a speed of rotation of a shaft of an electric motor that is operatively coupled to a pump”, note that flow rate and pressure are interrelated parameters of the pump characteristic curves).
Re. claim 22, Hoefel discloses a method for efficiently running a pump driven by a motor (FIG.’s 1-16, Abstract, multiple ESP pump control schemes/methods and embodiments disclosed), the method comprising:
receiving a desired operating rotational speed of the motor (para. 0070, “a target speed a closed loop speed controlled operation may be implemented using motor speed related to pump flow and actuation torque related to load pressure”, target speed is a desired operating rotation speed for the controller);
receiving motor electrical data related to current signals and voltage signals of a drive connected to the motor (FIG. 11, para. 0108-0111, inter alia, control blocks showing motor electrical data including Phase Currents and Vabc fed back in system for speed control in a PI Speed Control from the PWM drive, __receiving motor electrical data in the manner claimed);
calculating an estimated rotational speed of the motor using the motor electrical data (Id., Estimated Speed from Speed and Torque Position Track, as shown in control blocks);
adjusting an operating voltage of the drive connected to the motor to obtain an adjusted operating voltage (Id., note V (voltage) signals input into PWM control blocks, __interpreted as adjusting operating voltage accordingly);
adjusting an operating frequency of the drive to control the estimated rotational speed of the motor to the desired operating rotational speed in response to changes to the estimated rotational speed from adjustments to the operating voltage (para.’s 0120-0122, “a strategy for induction motor open loop ramp up may be based on scalar methods where voltage is ramped up proportional to the frequency ramp up of the excitation,” frequency ramp up indicates adjusting operating frequency; note also that a PWM control inherently adjusts operating frequency based upon voltage to control motor speed6);
monitoring an electrical power consumed by the drive resulting from the adjusted operating voltage and adjusting the operating frequency (para.’s 0049 & 0075, “For VSD units, the UNICONN™ motor controller can monitor VSD output current, ESP running current, VSD output voltage, supply voltage, VSD input and VSD output power,” monitoring power accordingly); and
performing additional adjustments to the operating voltage and the operating frequency in a systematic manner to affect the motor to operate at a higher efficiency while controlling the estimated rotational speed of the motor to the desired operating rotational speed (FIG. 11, para. 0064, inter aiia, “system may be implemented with circuitry that can estimate downhole pump rate … implement speed control to reduce shaft oscillation 605; efficiently run a motor (e.g., on a long cable) with better motor efficiency and less cable losses 606,“ __system controller implementations using PI Controllers operating in real time to track speed that involve making discrete adjustments to operating voltage and frequency (PWM signals), interpreted as performing additional adjustments as claimed thereby operating motor at higher efficiencies, thus meeting the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms).
Re. claim 23, refer to the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re. claim 24, refer to the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re. claim 26, refer to the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re. claim 27, refer to the rejection of claim 6 above.
Re. claim 28, refer to the rejection of claim 7 above.
Re. claim 29, refer to the rejection of claim 21 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 claims 4 and 25 and dependents, the prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or fairly suggest the system of claim 1 or the method of claim 22 with the limitations of claims 3 or 23, further wherein the additional adjustments comprise using a gradient descent procedure, an extremum seeking control procedure, or a golden section search procedure.
While Hoefel does compensate for cable losses, it does not contemplate doing so using the claimed mathematical procedures and voltage frequency ratio calculations set forth in the intervening claims. There is no nexus in the available prior art that teaches or suggests using this type of procedure in the claimed context. It is the Examiner’s opinion that modification of the applied art would not be reasonably foreseeable without the benefit of the disclosure of the instant invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Janger et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0184071) discloses a power optimization control for ESP motors representing the general state of the art.
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 A species based upon the embodiment indicated as Species III in the species election requirement of 11 August 2025.
2 Para. 0074 of the specification states: “[a]dvantageously, optimizer 720 may be configured to adjust the voltage value sent to drive 718 to compensate for the change in frequency by multiplying a specified voltage-frequency ratio by the adjusted frequency, because the impedance of the motor may depend proportionally on the frequency of the of the input electricity adjusting the voltage for a specified voltage-frequency ratio may cause the speed of the motor to also vary more linearly with the adjustments to the frequency” It appears that at least one of the current operating frequency terms should refer to an adjusted frequency. .
3 Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-width_modulation.
4 Interpreted broadly in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues, supra.
5 Note that optimization is a primary consideration of closed-loop control schemes applied to various systems that use motors.
6 Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-width_modulation.