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Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/18/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and its dependents are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 reads “a motor driven connected to the inverter.”. It appears the term “driven” is extraneous and can be removed from the limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 20-22 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kidd et al (US PGPub No. 2010/0310382).
Kidd teaches:
limitations from claim 20, a non-transitory computer-readable medium with an executable program stored thereon for controlling a motor in a liquid system (see controller 75 and memory “EEPROM” for enacting the control process; paragraph 130), wherein the program instructs a controller (75) to perform the following steps: control an operating frequency of the motor to cause a pump to maintain an actual pressure of liquid in the liquid system at or near a first pressure (paragraphs 72, 87, and 93 for example) for a first timer; and respond to a determination that the first timer has elapsed by initiating a sleep mode determination (paragraph 96; FIG. 12; 126, 128, 130, 132, 134), comprising: ramping the operating frequency to a low frequency (FIG. 12, STEP 142); determining whether the actual pressure remains above a second pressure which is less than the first pressure (STEPS 146, 148) for a second timer (STEP 144); and responding to the actual pressure remaining above the second pressure for the second timer by causing the motor to enter a sleep mode (STEP 150; paragraph 94-95);
limitations from claim 21, wherein the low frequency is a PID Lo Limit (see STEP 142 and paragraph 95 in which the frequency is lowered until pressure is maintained at a lowest pressure point 148);
limitations from claim 22, wherein the program further instructs the controller to: determine whether the actual pressure drops below a third pressure (see STEP 154, “wake up differential pressure”) which is less than the second pressure while the motor is in the sleep mode (paragraph 95); and respond to the actual pressure dropping below the third pressure by causing the motor to exit the sleep mode (paragraph 95 in which the process returns to STEP 123 and PID control);
limitations from claim 25, wherein the sleep mode determination further comprises responding to the actual pressure dropping below the second pressure during the second timer by exiting the sleep mode determination (see STEP 146 leading to PID Mode 126);
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) 11-18 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidd et al (US PGPub No. 2010/0310382) in view of Aikman et al (US PGPub No. 2021/0396234.
Kidd teaches:
limitations from claim 11, a system (FIG. 6) for controlling an actual pressure of liquid in a liquid system (paragraph 72), comprising: a motor drive (10) including a controller (75); a motor (11); a pump (12) connected to the motor, the pump being configured to deliver liquid to at least one conduit (to water tank 17 for example; paragraph 84; FIG. 5-6) of the liquid system; and a pressure sensor (15) configured to provide the controller measurements of an actual pressure of liquid in the at least one conduit (paragraph 84); wherein the controller is configured to control an operating frequency of the motor in response to the actual pressure from the pressure sensor to cause the pump to maintain the actual pressure at or near a first pressure (paragraphs 72, 87, and 93 for example); and wherein the controller is further configured to respond to a first timer elapsing by initiating a sleep mode determination (paragraph 96; FIG. 12; 126, 128, 130, 132, 134), comprising: ramping the operating frequency to a low frequency (142); determining whether the actual pressure remains above a second pressure which is less than the first pressure (146, 148) for a duration of a second timer (144); and responding to the actual pressure remaining above the second pressure for the duration of the second timer by causing the motor to enter a sleep mode (150; paragraph 94-95);
Kidd does not expressly teach an inverter as part of the pump motor drive;
However, Aikman teaches a pump system (10) including a pump (30, 36) driven by a motor (32) that is controlled by a VFD (100) with a controller (102) and an inverter (130; paragraph 37, 40);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int eh art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to include an inverter with the VFD of Kidd, as is commonly known and taught by Aikman, in order to allow for the conditioning and control of various input power;
Kidd further teaches:
limitations from claim 12, wherein the low frequency is a PID Lo Limit (see STEP 142 and paragraph 95 in which the frequency is lowered until pressure is maintained at a lowest pressure point 148);
limitations from claim 13, wherein the controller is configured to: determine whether the actual pressure drops below a third pressure (see STEP 154, “wake up differential pressure”) which is less than the second pressure while the motor is in the sleep mode (paragraph 95); and respond to the actual pressure dropping below the third pressure by causing the motor to exit the sleep mode (paragraph 95 in which the process returns to STEP 123 and PID control);
limitations from claim 16, wherein the sleep mode determination further comprises responding to the actual pressure dropping below the second pressure during the second timer by exiting the sleep mode determination (see STEP 146 leading to PID Mode 126);
limitations from claim 17, wherein the controller is configured to control the operating frequency of the motor by controlling the inverter to vary power provided to the motor (Kidd teaches varying the operating frequency of the motor, paragraph 72 and 93, and Aikman teaches the use of an inverter in motor frequency control, paragraph 37 and 40 of Aikman);
limitations from claim 18, wherein the duration of the second timer is based upon the operating frequency of the motor when the first timer has elapsed (see STEP 128 in which the frequency must be stable for the timing and monitoring process to occur);
Regarding claims 14-15 and 23-24:
Kidd teaches comparing an actual pressure tom the second threshold (STEP 148 for example; see paragraph 95 “differential pressure”; the process sets a pressure about 5 PSI below the lower limit and necessarily performs a comparison to that pressure), but does not explicitly teach computing a pressure error;
However, Aikman teaches the use of an error value between a desired and an actual parameter value as a known computing and control process in pumps (see paragraph 8-10);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pumps at the time the invention was filed to substitute one known threshold comparison method for another, such as the error-based process of Aikman for the apparent direct comparison of Kidd, as a matter of design choice in order to reach an expected result; in this case the comparison of an actual value to a desired value, and the subsequent pump-based control).
Claims 14 and 23, wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the actual pressure drops below the third pressure by computing a pressure error between the actual pressure and the third pressure and determining whether the pressure error is greater than zero;
Claims 15 and 24, wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the actual pressure remains above the second pressure by computing a pressure error between the actual pressure and the second pressure and determining whether the pressure error is greater than zero.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 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.
Claim 19 recites “…wherein a range of the operating frequency extends from the low frequency to a high frequency, the range being divided into a plurality of zones, and the duration of the second timer is based upon which of the plurality of zones the operating frequency of the motor falls when the first timer has elapsed.”. The closest prior art, while teaching frequency control and timers, does not teach dividing a frequency range into zones and basing a timer duration on said zones.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO 99/63225 teaches a pressurized water supply utilizing timers to control a pump;
US Patent 5580221 teaches a pressurized fluid system in which a pump is controlled to maintain a pressure, and turning off the pump when no flow through the system occurs;
US Patent 4232997 teaches controlling a pump to a minimum speed when demand for compressed fluid drops;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH whose telephone number is (571)270-5289. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S BOBISH/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights