DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: Application filed on 09/16/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for Examination. Claims 1, 6 and 12 are independent.
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 .
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 12 both recite "drives the motor at ωref; based on the rotational data; and". The inclusion of the semicolon immediately after improperly fragments the clause, rendering the logical phrasing of the limitations unclear. Applicant should delete the first semicolon in this clause.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a mechanical body" There is insufficient
antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what this physical structure is or how it relates to the motor of base claim 1.
Claim 6 recites "a first motor rotational feedback sensor (or equivalent method)".
Alternative claiming is generally permitted only if it does not lead to ambiguity. Here, claiming a physical sensor structure "or an equivalent method" obscures the metes and bounds of the claim, as it attempts to claim both an apparatus limitation and a method step in the alternative within a system claim.
Claim 6 recites a "first motor driver" and a "second motor driver." However,
Claim 11, which depends on Claim 6, introduces a "third motor controller." It is unclear if
a "motor controller" is meant to be the same structural component as a "motor driver." Applicant should use consistent terminology throughout the claim set.
Claim 7 includes the parenthetical phrase "(position synchronization)".Claim 8 includes the parenthetical phrase "(power consumption synchronization)".The use of explanatory parentheticals renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the parenthetical phrases constitute structural/functional limitations of the claim or are merely instructional commentary.
Claim 10 recites "determined by by the first gain K". The repetition of the word "by" is a typographical error that confuses the reading of the claim.
Claim 11 recites "accepts IPSUmotor1, VPSUmotor1, IPSUmotor2, VPSUmotor2 IPSUmotor1, VPSUmotor1, IPSUmotor3, and VPSUmotor3 from the first measurement device and the second measurement device;”. First, the variables for motor 1 are inadvertently repeated. Second, the claim fails to recite that the motor 3 variables are accepted from the "third measurement device" introduced earlier in the claim.
Claim 12 recites "selecting a speed reference (\omega_{ref}) that is desired at a
first downhole motor" and "based on rotational data." However, neither a "first downhole motor" nor the step of acquiring "rotational data" has been previously introduced in the claim. The preamble merely recites "controlling downhole electric motors" (plural).
Claim 13 recites "a downhole mechanical body." There is insufficient antecedent
basis for this limitation in base claim 12.
Claim 15 (which depends on Claim 12) recites the variables "IPSUmotor2" and "VPSUmotor2". However, base claim 12 defines the variables simply as "IPSU" and "VPSU". It is unclear if "IPSUmotor2 " is intended to refer back to the "IPSU" of claim 12 or if it is a newly introduced variable.
Claim 18 recites "how much influence N1 is equal to N2 has over the adjusting ". This phrasing is colloquial and lacks the precision required of a patent claim. It is unclear what "influence" means in a mathematical or control-logic sense.
Applicant should amend the claim using standard control logic terminology, such as applying the gain to a calculated difference between N1 and N2.
Since the independent claims 1, 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and hence the dependent claims of 1, 6 and 12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and recites "the motor controller further adjusts ωref until the product of IPSU and VPSU is equal to Powerref." Base claim 1 already explicitly requires the motor controller to "continuously adjusts ωref to keep a product of IPSU and VPSU equal to Powerref.." Therefore, claim 4 fails to add a further limitation to the base claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 2-5, 7-11 and 13-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8439. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 6:00pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 571-272-2060. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights