DETAILED ACTION
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
The Amendments to the Claims filed 03/31/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 4-12, and 15-23 are pending in the application. Claims 2-3 and 13-14 have been canceled and claims 21-23 are new. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome each and every claim objection previously set forth in the Non-final rejection dated 10/01/2025. Due to amendments to the claims new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are presented below.
Claim Objections
As noted above the claim objection previously set forth have been overcome by amendment to the claims.
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, 4-7, 10-12, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynes et al. (US 20040230384 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 12. Haynes teaches:
a pump (See para[0030]: fuel boost pumps are submerged inside the wing fuel tanks.);
a plurality of sensors configured to measure at least two different parameters regarding the operation or condition of the pump (See Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and para[0080]: clamp-on probes for sensing electric current.); and
a data logging apparatus having:
a plurality of sensor ports configured to receive the plurality of sensors (See Fig. 2, Annotated Fig. 3, and para[0040]: The current probe output leads are connected to data acquisition equipment.
PNG
media_image1.png
764
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
processing circuitry (See Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and para[0010]: a signal processor.);
memory (See Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and para[0010]: a signal processor having means for buffering.); and
a case (See Fig. 3 and para[0041]: A "suitcase-style" embodiment.),
a tablet comprising a display, wherein the data logging apparatus is configured to send information to the tablet for presentation on the display (See Fig. 2, Fig. 3, para[0010], and para[0080] - para[0081]: A portable computer running several virtual instruments (Vis). A computer having a means for analyzing, displaying, and reporting motor current signatures.) (Examiner note: Based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “tablet”, a portable computer is interpreted to be equivalent to a tablet.),
wherein the case is configured to encase the plurality of sensor ports, the memory, and the processing circuitry (See Fig. 3 and para[0041]: all of the fragile components encased in a military standard suitcase for extra durability.),
the data logging apparatus is configured to collect first data, the first data comprises data regarding at least one of an electrical frequency (See Fig. 10, Fig. 11, Fig. 13, and para[0091]: A frequency spectrum is determined from each of the three phase current signals.),
an electrical phase, or
an electrical phase shift value of the pump (See Fig. 5A, Fig. 9, Fig. 12, and para[0081]: A computer screen display of the data acquisition VI provides a continuous RMS magnitude chart of the four current channels (three phases plus neutral).), and
the display is configured to present first data (See Fig. Fig. 5A – Fig. 5E, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, para[0004]: Time and frequency domain plots. Hydrodynamic performance curves.).
Haynes discloses the claimed invention except for:
wherein the data logging apparatus weighs 50 pounds or less.
Nevertheless Haynes teaches a portable, suitcase-style, apparatus (See Fig. 3, para[0041], and para[0080]: A "suitcase-style" embodiment of the ESA-based diagnostic system has all of the fragile components encased in a military standard suitcase for extra durability. A portable system.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the suitcase-style embodiment of Haynes to be 50 pounds or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Haynes teaches “a consistent platform for obtaining and analyzing electric current data from fuel pumps tested at ORNL, OC-ALC, and WPAFB, a portable system was developed” (See para[0080]). One would have been motivated to optimize Haynes in order to provide a consistent platform for obtaining and analyzing data, as recognized by Haynes.
Regarding Claims 4 and 15. Haynes teaches:
The pump performance data logging system of claim 1, or the pump performance data logging apparatus of claim 12,
wherein the data logging apparatus includes a dedicated processing circuitry (See Fig. 2, Fig. 18, para[0010], and para[0128]: A signal processor having means for buffering and anti-aliasing said current signals into a pump motor current signal. Signal conditioning circuits.)
for measuring at least one of an electrical frequency (See Fig. 10, Fig. 11, Fig. 13, and para[0091]: A frequency spectrum is determined from each of the three phase current signals.) or
electrical harmonics data (See para[0044]: Frequency components having an integer order are harmonics of motor speed.).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16. Haynes teaches:
The pump performance data logging system of claim 1, or the pump performance data logging apparatus of claim 12,
wherein the data logging apparatus is configured to receive an input from a user, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adjust the operation of the data logging apparatus based on the received input (See Fig. 3, Annotated Fig. 5A, and para[0080]: a portable computer running several virtual instruments (VIs).
PNG
media_image2.png
699
832
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding Claims 6 and 17. Haynes teaches:
The pump performance data logging system of claim 1, or the pump performance data logging apparatus of claim 12,
wherein the data logging apparatus is configured to receive an input from a user, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a performance metric based on the received input (See Fig. 3, Annotated Fig. 5C, para[0045], para[0082], para[0084]: fuel pump hydrodynamic performance curves can characterize the relationships that exist between measurable parameters, such as flow rate, discharge pressure, motor running current, and motor speed. This VI provides a digital demodulation algorithm and a novel means of automatically determining the pump's operating speed solely from the current signature.
PNG
media_image3.png
733
853
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding Claims 7 and 18. Haynes teaches:
The pump performance data logging system of claim 6, or the pump performance data logging apparatus of claim 17,
wherein the display is configured to present the performance metric (See Fig. 5C, Fig. 5E, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 11, Fig. 12, and para[0045]: fuel pump hydrodynamic performance curves can characterize the relationships that exist between measurable parameters, such as flow rate, discharge pressure, motor running current, and motor speed.).
Regarding Claim 10. Haynes teaches:
The pump performance data logging system of claim 1,
wherein data for the plurality of sensors is recorded in the memory with synchronized time stamp values (See Fig. 5A, Fig. 6A, Fig. 9, Fig. 12, and para[0004]: Time domain plots.).
Regarding Claims 11 and 20. Haynes teaches:
The pump performance data logging system of claim 1, or the pump performance data logging apparatus of claim 12,
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to create a graph based on data from the plurality of sensors, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause presentation of the graph on the display (See Fig. Fig. 5A – Fig. 5E, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, para[0004]: Time and frequency domain plots. Hydrodynamic performance curves.).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynes et al. (US 20040230384 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rothbart (US 20150355254 A1).
Regarding Claim 8. Haynes is silent as to the language of:
The pump performance data logging system of claim 1,
wherein the pump is a water or a wastewater pump.
Nevertheless Rothbart teaches:
wherein the pump is a water or a wastewater pump (See para[0001] and para[0100]: Sump pumps and ejector pumps are widely used throughout the world in sumps, basins, or pits of structures (such as buildings and houses) to pump water or waste from sanitary collection sumps. The system additionally takes into account one or more of the following pump data to predict the likelihood that the pump will fail: … (h) type of water pumped (e.g., sewage versus rain water).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haynes wherein the data logging apparatus is configured to send information to the tablet via a Wi- Fi connection for presentation on the display, the pump is a wastewater pump, and the tablet is not attached to the data logging apparatus such as that of Rothbart. Rothbart teaches, “the user will know that the pump monitor is working because the user receives one or more signals from the pump monitor to a user access device” (See para[0036]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Haynes, because monitoring a wastewater pump would have helped to inform a user of the condition of the pump without having to directly access the pump, as recognized by Rothbart.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynes et al. (US 20040230384 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Lenz (US 5446389 A).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19. Haynes is silent as to the language of:
The pump performance data logging system of claim 1, or the pump performance data logging apparatus of claim 12,
wherein the system includes at least ten sensor ports, wherein the at least ten sensor ports are analog ports.
Nevertheless Lenz teaches:
wherein the system includes at least ten sensor ports, wherein the at least ten sensor ports are analog ports (See Fig. 1 and Col. 3, line 60 – Col. 4, line 2: pairs of connection means 32, which may be banana jacks.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haynes wherein the system includes at least ten sensor ports, wherein the at least ten sensor ports are analog ports such as that of Lenz. Haynes and Lenz are analogous to the instant application, because all of the references are directed to the same problem. Lenz teaches, “The galvanometers may measure voltage or current and allow simultaneous monitoring of multiple signals in the locomotive system” (See Col. 2, lines 15-20). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Haynes, because using at least ten sensor ports would have helped monitor multiple signals simultaneously, as recognized by Lenz.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynes et al. (US 20040230384 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rothbart (US 20150355254 A1).
Regarding Claim 21. Haynes is silent as to the language of:
The pump performance data logging system of Claim 1,
wherein the data logging apparatus comprises a communications interface configured to establish a wireless connection with at least one wireless device.
Nevertheless Rothbart teaches:
wherein the data logging apparatus comprises a communications interface configured to establish a wireless connection with at least one wireless device (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, para[0020], para[0034], para[0089], para[0091], and para[0094] – para[0095]: The system 100 is configured to enable users to use the user access devices to access and communicate with the computer (or server) of the system 100 through the internet or any other suitable data network 110. It should further be appreciated that the system communicates with the pump monitors, the user access devices, and any third party data provider systems (discussed below) through … wireless data network.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haynes wherein the data logging apparatus comprises a communications interface configured to establish a wireless connection with at least one wireless device such as that of Rothbart. Rothbart teaches, “the user will know that the pump monitor is working because the user receives one or more signals from the pump monitor to a user access device” (See para[0036]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Haynes, because sending information using a Wi-Fi connection would have helped to inform a user of the condition of the pump without having to directly access the pump, as recognized by Rothbart.
Regarding Claim 22. Haynes is silent as to the language of:
The pump performance data logging system of Claim 21,
wherein the at least one wireless device includes at least one of the tablet or a wireless sensor.
Nevertheless Rothbart teaches:
wherein the at least one wireless device includes at least one of the tablet or a wireless sensor (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, para[0020], para[0034], para[0089], para[0091], and para[0094] – para[0095]: The system 100 is configured to enable users to use the user access devices to access and communicate with the computer (or server) of the system 100 through the internet or any other suitable data network 110. It should further be appreciated that the system communicates with the pump monitors, the user access devices, and any third party data provider systems (discussed below) through … wireless data network.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haynes wherein the at least one wireless device includes at least one of the tablet or a wireless sensor such as that of Rothbart. Rothbart teaches, “the user will know that the pump monitor is working because the user receives one or more signals from the pump monitor to a user access device” (See para[0036]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Haynes, because sending information using a Wi-Fi connection would have helped to inform a user of the condition of the pump without having to directly access the pump, as recognized by Rothbart.
Regarding Claim 23. Haynes teaches:
The pump performance data logging system of claim 22,
wherein the plurality of sensors includes a voltage sensor, a current sensor (See para[0040]: current probes.), a temperature sensor (See para[0034]: temperature sensor.), a barometric pressure sensor, a level sensor, a flow sensor (See para[0034] and para[0045]: fuel flow rate.), a process sensor, or a tachometer sensor.
Claims 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynes et al. (US 20040230384 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of XAQ-PAC (XAQ-PAC, User’s Manual, DRAFT, Version 20181018.).
Regarding Claim 21. Haynes is silent as to the language of:
The pump performance data logging system of Claim 1,
wherein the data logging apparatus comprises a communications interface configured to establish a wireless connection with at least one wireless device.
Nevertheless XAQ-PAC teaches:
wherein the data logging apparatus comprises a communications interface configured to establish a wireless connection with at least one wireless device (See Page 8: Bluetooth: Internal antenna with range of up to 100 Ft. Requires an Android with Bluetooth enabled.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haynes wherein the data logging apparatus comprises a communications interface configured to establish a wireless connection with at least one wireless device such as that of XAQ-PAC. XAQ-PAC teaches, “When the device is paused blue tooth commands may be sent via a paired Android device” (See Page 19). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Haynes, because using a wireless connection would have helped to send and receive commands, as recognized by XAQ-PAC.
Regarding Claim 22. Haynes is silent as to the language of:
The pump performance data logging system of Claim 21,
wherein the at least one wireless device includes at least one of the tablet or a wireless sensor.
Nevertheless XAQ-PAC teaches:
wherein the at least one wireless device includes at least one of the tablet or a wireless sensor (See Page 8: Android device.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haynes wherein the at least one wireless device includes at least one of the tablet or a wireless sensor such as that of XAQ-PAC. XAQ-PAC teaches, “When the device is paused blue tooth commands may be sent via a paired Android device” (See Page 19). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Haynes, because using a tablet would have helped send and receive commands, as recognized by XAQ-PAC.
Regarding Claim 23. Haynes teaches:
The pump performance data logging system of claim 22,
wherein the plurality of sensors includes a voltage sensor, a current sensor (See para[0040]: current probes.), a temperature sensor (See para[0034]: temperature sensor.), a barometric pressure sensor, a level sensor, a flow sensor (See para[0034] and para[0045]: fuel flow rate.), a process sensor, or a tachometer sensor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to provide the invention as claimed, providing a single data logging apparatus configured to obtain all of the specified data types described. Doing so would simultaneously require the person of ordinary skill in the art (1) to make the weight of the Haynes device 50 pounds or less (2) while adding further functionality to provide advanced analytical tools related to electrical frequency, an electrical phase, or an electrical phase shift value.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “obtain all of the specified data types described”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claims 1 and 12 recite “the first data comprises data regarding at least one of”. Claims 1 and 12 recite a list of alternatives and do not require that all of the specified data types be measured by a single device.
Applicant argues that: Also, Haynes does not teach, suggest, or disclose a single data logging apparatus that includes all of the features described in the independent claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 have been considered but are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, Haynes teaches: “To provide a consistent platform for obtaining and analyzing fuel pump electric current data, a portable system was developed. This system, shown in FIGS. 3 and 4, includes clamp-on probes (AEMC.RTM. Instruments model MN261) for sensing current in all three pump electrical phases plus neutral, signal conditioning electronics for signal buffering and anti-alias filtering, and a portable computer” (See para[0041]); and “A "suitcase-style" embodiment of the ESA-based diagnostic system has all of the fragile components encased in a military standard suitcase for extra durability” (See para[0041]; “To provide a consistent platform for obtaining and analyzing electric current data from fuel pumps tested at ORNL, OC-ALC, and WPAFB, a portable system was developed. This system, shown photographically in FIG. 3 and schematically in FIG. 2, includes clamp-on probes for sensing electric current in all three electrical phases plus neutral, signal conditioning electronics for signal buffering and anti-alias filtering, and a portable computer running several virtual instruments (VIs) that are based on LabView.TM., a commercially available software development system. A photograph of the signal conditioning box is provided in FIG. 4.” (See para[0080]); and
PNG
media_image4.png
462
700
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitation “wherein the case is configured to encase the plurality of sensor ports, the memory, and the processing circuitry.” Haynes discloses a broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations encase “the memory” and “the processing circuitry,” because Haynes discloses that the portable system (as photographically shown in fig. 3 and schematically shown in fig. 2) includes a portable computer that is encased by a suitcase. Haynes discloses a broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations “encase the plurality of sensor ports,” because Haynes discloses that the portable system (as photographically shown in fig. 3 and schematically shown in fig. 2) includes both clamp-on probes and signal conditioning electronics that are encased by a suitcase. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments regarding the limitation “encase the plurality of sensor ports, the memory, and the processing circuitry” are not persuasive and the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that: In the discussion about tablet limitations previously presented in Claim 13, the Office Action pointed to FIG. 2, FIG. 3, 10, and 81 of Haynes in attempt to show that a "tablet having a display" is present in the devices of Haynes, and it appears that the Office Action is relying on the computer of Haynes in an effort to meet the tablet limitation. However, the device in Haynes is never referred to as a tablet.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the applicant argues that Haynes does not teach or suggest the device as described by claims 1 and 12 because the term "tablet" as used by applicant is nowhere to be found in the reference. However, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim are given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification (MPEP 2111.01(I)). Furthermore, while elements must be arranged as required by the claim, this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required (MPEP 2131). In view of the state of the art, the examiner understands the ordinary and customary meaning of the term tablet to include a portable computing device. Applicant’s specification does not rebut the presumption that the term tablet is to be given its ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a different definition of the term. There is no requirement that the reference use the same "tablet" term as applicant. As an indication that a portable computing device is within the BRI of the claim term, the specification provides an example (i.e., a reasonable interpretation) of a tablet as “The user may adjust the time period in various ways, including, for example, via a tablet” (para[0038]) and “a scrolling data view 700 that may be presented to users on a display 360 or on the display of a tablet” (See para[0066]). Therefore, the BRI of the term tablet, consistent with the specification, encompasses a device with a display and a user interface. Haynes’s “a portable computer” comprises a display and an interface (Fig. 3). Haynes discloses applicant’s claimed tablet according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments regarding the term “tablet” are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 pm.
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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights