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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furutani et al. (US 2015/0137727) in view of Kobayashi (US 2014/0265954).
Regarding claim 1,
Furutani discloses (Fig. 6):
A method of actuating an article (Fig. 6, ¶0031) using a servo actuation system (Fig. 6), the servo actuation system comprising a motor (5), a controller (1b) and an inverter (3, ¶0026); wherein the controller (1b) comprises a position controller (39), a velocity controller (41, 17, 20) and a current controller (22), and wherein the position controller (39) outputs velocity demands (40) to the velocity controller (41, 17, 20, ¶0101), the velocity controller (41, 17, 20) outputs current demands (21) to the current controller (22, ¶0041-¶0042), and the current controller outputs voltage demands (23) to the inverter (3, ¶0043, via 26); and wherein the inverter (3) outputs inverted voltage demands to the motor (5, ¶0043); the method comprising:
They do not disclose:
(i) determining a parameter downstream of the inverter:(ii) calculating a limiting value from the parameter and a defined supply power limit;and(iii) applying the limiting value in the controller to ensure that the power drawn by the servo actuation system remains within the defined supply power limit.
However, Kobayashi teaches (Fig. 1):
(i) determining a parameter downstream of the inverter (Fig. 1, Iu, Iv, Iw, ¶0040):(ii) calculating a limiting value (Glimit) from the parameter (Iu, Iv, Iw currents) and a defined supply power limit (¶0046, battery power, Lin);and(iii) applying the limiting value (Glimit) in the controller to ensure that the power drawn by the servo actuation system remains within the defined supply power limit (limits voltage command, ¶0048, 0051).
Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the servo motor controller from Furutani that is used to limit the power output in order to smoothly control a servo motor using a DC power supply (¶0026) and utilize the voltage limit from Kobayashi to further limit the power by limiting the voltage command in order to not use more power than the power supply can allow as taught by Kobayashi (¶0051). This would improve efficiency for the system.
Regarding claim 2,
Furutani discloses the above elements from claim 1.
They do not disclose:
]The method according to claim 1. wherein step (i) comprises estimating a motor voltage downstream of the inverter.
However, Kobayashi teaches (Fig. 1):
The method according to claim 1. wherein step (i) comprises estimating a motor voltage downstream of the inverter (Fig. 1, from Du,. Dv, Dw, ¶0038)
Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the servo motor controller from Furutani that is used to limit the power output in order to smoothly control a servo motor using a DC power supply (¶0026) and utilize the voltage limit from Kobayashi to further limit the power by limiting the voltage command in order to not use more power than the power supply can allow as taught by Kobayashi (¶0051). This would improve efficiency for the system.
Regarding claim 3,
Furutani discloses the above elements from claim 2.
They do not disclose:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the motor voltage is estimated from the voltage demands output by the current controller.
However, Kobayashi teaches (Fig. 1):
The method according to claim 2, wherein the motor voltage is estimated from the voltage demands output by the current controller (Fig. 1, from Du,. Dv, Dw, ¶0038)
Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the servo motor controller from Furutani that is used to limit the power output in order to smoothly control a servo motor using a DC power supply (¶0026) and utilize the voltage limit from Kobayashi to further limit the power by limiting the voltage command in order to not use more power than the power supply can allow as taught by Kobayashi (¶0051). This would improve efficiency for the system.
Regarding claim 4,
Furutani discloses the above elements from claim 2.
They do not disclose:
wherein step (ii) comprises calculating a motor current limit from the estimated motor voltage and the defined supply power limit.
However, Kobayashi teaches (Fig. 1):
wherein step (ii) comprises calculating a motor current limit from the estimated motor voltage and the defined supply power limit (limits motor current by limitng votlage command in 45, ¶0054).
Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the servo motor controller from Furutani that is used to limit the power output in order to smoothly control a servo motor using a DC power supply (¶0026) and utilize the voltage limit from Kobayashi to further limit the power by limiting the voltage command in order to not use more power than the power supply can allow as taught by Kobayashi (¶0051). This would improve efficiency for the system.
Regarding claim 5,
Furutani discloses the above elements from claim 4.
They do not disclose:
wherein step (iii) comprises applying the motor current limit upstream of the current controller.
However, Kobayashi teaches (Fig. 1):
,wherein step (iii) comprises applying the motor current limit upstream of the current controller (limiting votlage limits current, ¶0054).
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the servo motor controller from Furutani that is used to limit the power output in order to smoothly control a servo motor using a DC power supply (¶0026) and utilize the voltage limit from Kobayashi to further limit the power by limiting the voltage command in order to not use more power than the power supply can allow as taught by Kobayashi (¶0051). This would improve efficiency for the system.
Regarding claim 6,
Furutani discloses the above elements from claim 5.
They do not disclose:
wherein step (iii) comprises applying the motor current limit to the current demands output by the velocity controller.
However, Kobayashi teaches (Fig. 1):
wherein step (iii) comprises applying the motor current limit to the current demands output by the velocity controller (limits voltage command which is from the current command in 43 and 45, ¶0054).
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the servo motor controller from Furutani that is used to limit the power output in order to smoothly control a servo motor using a DC power supply (¶0026) and utilize the voltage limit from Kobayashi to further limit the power by limiting the voltage command in order to not use more power than the power supply can allow as taught by Kobayashi (¶0051). This would improve efficiency for the system.
Regarding claim 7,
Furutani discloses (Fig. 6):
The method according to claim 1,wherein step (i) comprises measuring the motor current downstream of the inverter (4, ¶0042).
Regarding claim 8,
Furutani discloses the above elements from claim 7.
They do not disclose:
wherein step (ii) comprises calculating a limiting voltage from the measured motor current and the defined supply power limit.
However, Kobayashi teaches (Fig. 1):
wherein step (ii) comprises calculating a limiting voltage from the measured motor current and the defined supply power limit (Fig. 1, Glimit, limits voltage command, ¶0048, 0051).
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the servo motor controller from Furutani that is used to limit the power output in order to smoothly control a servo motor using a DC power supply (¶0026) and utilize the voltage limit from Kobayashi to further limit the power by limiting the voltage command in order to not use more power than the power supply can allow as taught by Kobayashi (¶0051). This would improve efficiency for the system.
Regarding claim 9,
Furutani discloses the above elements from claim 8.
They do not disclose:
wherein step (iii) comprises applying the limiting voltage downstream of the current controller.
However, Kobayashi teaches (Fig. 1):
wherein step (iii) comprises applying the limiting voltage downstream of the current controller (Fig. 1, Glimit, limits voltage command, ¶0048, 0051).
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the servo motor controller from Furutani that is used to limit the power output in order to smoothly control a servo motor using a DC power supply (¶0026) and utilize the voltage limit from Kobayashi to further limit the power by limiting the voltage command in order to not use more power than the power supply can allow as taught by Kobayashi (¶0051). This would improve efficiency for the system.
Regarding claim 10,
Furutani discloses the above elements from claim 9.
They do not disclose:
wherein step (iii) comprises applying the limiting voltage to the voltage demands output by the current controller.
However, Kobayashi teaches (Fig. 1):
wherein step (iii) comprises applying the limiting voltage to the voltage demands output by the current controller (Fig. 1, Glimit, limits voltage command, ¶0048, 0051).
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the servo motor controller from Furutani that is used to limit the power output in order to smoothly control a servo motor using a DC power supply (¶0026) and utilize the voltage limit from Kobayashi to further limit the power by limiting the voltage command in order to not use more power than the power supply can allow as taught by Kobayashi (¶0051). This would improve efficiency for the system.
Regarding claim 11,
Furutani discloses the above elements from claim 1.
They do not disclose:
comprising compensating for variations in a supply voltage by:(iv) measuring the supply voltage upstream of the inverter;(v) determining the inverter duty cycle against a nominal voltage: (vi) scaling the inverted voltage demands output by the inverter to compensate for deviations in the supply voltage away from the nominal voltage.
However, Kobayashi teaches (Fig. 1):
further comprising compensating for variations in supply voltage by:(iv) measurin gthe supply voltage upstream of the inverter (Vin, ¶0040);(v) determining the inverter duty cycle against a nominal voltage (Du, Dv, Dw, ¶0040) : (vi) scaling the inverted voltage demands output by the inverter to compensate for deviations in the supply voltage away from the nominal voltage (¶0048, ¶0051).
Regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the servo motor controller from Furutani that is used to limit the power output in order to smoothly control a servo motor using a DC power supply (¶0026) and utilize the voltage limit from Kobayashi to further limit the power by limiting the voltage command in order to not use more power than the power supply can allow as taught by Kobayashi (¶0051). This would improve efficiency for the system.
Regarding claim 12,
Furutani discloses (Fig. 6):
wherein the controller utilizes field-oriented control to control motor torque and field flux (¶0040).
Regarding claim 14,
Furutani discloses (Fig. 6):
A servo actuation system (Fig. 6, all elements) for actuating an article (¶0031) comprising: a motor (5); a processor (1b); and an inverter (3, ¶0026); wherein the processor (1b) comprises a position controller module (39), a velocity controller module (41, 17, 20) and a current controller module (22): and wherein the position controller module (39) is arranged to output velocity demands (40) to the velocity controller module (41, 17, 20, ¶0101), and the velocity controller module (41, 17, 20) is arranged to output current demands (21) to the current controller module (22, ¶0041-¶0042), and the current controller module (22) is arranged to output voltage demands (23) to the inverter (¶0043, via 26); and wherein the inverter (3) is arranged to output inverted voltage demands to the motor (5, ¶0043);
They do not disclose:
and wherein the processor is arranged to determine a parameter downstream of the inverter, and to calculate a limiting value from the parameter and a defined supply power limit, and to apply the limiting value in the processor to ensure that the power drawn by the servo actuation system remains within the defined supply power limit.
However, Kobayashi teaches (Fig. 1):
and wherein the processor is arranged to determine a parameter downstream of the inverter (Fig. 1, Iu, Iv, Iw, ¶0040), and to calculate a limiting value (Glimit) from the parameter (Iu, Iv, Iw currents) and a defined supply power limit (¶0046, battery power, Lin), and to apply the limiting value in the processor to ensure that the power drawn by the servo actuation system remains within the defined supply power limit (limits voltage command, ¶0048, 0051).
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the servo motor controller from Furutani that is used to limit the power output in order to smoothly control a servo motor using a DC power supply (¶0026) and utilize the voltage limit from Kobayashi to further limit the power by limiting the voltage command in order to not use more power than the power supply can allow as taught by Kobayashi (¶0051). This would improve efficiency for the system.
Regarding claim 15,
Furutani discloses (Fig. 6):
further comprising a current sensor (4) arranged to measure current downstream of the inverter (3, ¶0042), wherein the parameter is the current downstream of the inverter (¶0042), and the limiting value is a limiting voltage (¶0045).
Regarding claim 16,
Furutani discloses (Fig. 6):
further comprising a voltage sensor upstream of the inverter (Not shown, detects voltage of power supply which is upstream inverter, ¶0026).
Claim(s) 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furutani et al. (US 2015/0137727) and Kobayashi (US 2014/0265954) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Simarco et al. (US 2009/0218437).
Regarding claim 13,
Furutani discloses the above elements from claim 1.
They do not disclose:
wherein the method is a method of actuating a fin of a missile.
However, Simarco teaches:
wherein the method is a method of actuating a fin of a missile (¶0021).
Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the servo motor controller from Furutani that is used to limit the power output in order to smoothly control a servo motor using a DC power supply (¶0026) and utilize the voltage limit from Kobayashi to further limit the power by limiting the voltage command in order to not use more power than the power supply can allow as taught by Kobayashi (¶0051). This would improve efficiency for the system.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the servo motor controller from Furutani that is used to limit the power output in order to smoothly control a servo motor using a DC power supply (¶0026) and use this motor controller to control a missile fin with a servo motor as taught by Simarco (¶0021). This would improve reliability by making the motor not use excess power which would increase range for the missile.
Regarding claim 17,
Furutani discloses the above elements from claim 14.
They do not disclose:
wherein the article is a fin of a missile.
However, Simarco teaches:
wherein the article is a fin of a missile (¶0021).
Regarding claim 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the servo motor controller from Furutani that is used to limit the power output in order to smoothly control a servo motor using a DC power supply (¶0026) and utilize the voltage limit from Kobayashi to further limit the power by limiting the voltage command in order to not use more power than the power supply can allow as taught by Kobayashi (¶0051). This would improve efficiency for the system.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the servo motor controller from Furutani that is used to limit the power output in order to smoothly control a servo motor using a DC power supply (¶0026) and use this motor controller to control a missile fin with a servo motor as taught by Simarco (¶0021). This would improve reliability by making the motor not use excess power which would increase range for the missile.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Taira (US 2020/0373868) – motor drive system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7244. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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 at (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.
/C.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2846 /KAWING CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846