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 . 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.
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, 3-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirazi et al. (US 2019/0079135 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 10,914,620).
Referring to Claim 1: Shirazi discloses a system for detecting a fault of a linear drive system, the system comprising:
a track (10) comprising a plurality of track segments (12) defining a path along which a plurality of movers (100) travel and a plurality of drive coils (50) configured to induce travel of the plurality of movers along the track (Fig. 1);
a
processing circuitry configured to:
obtain feedback signals (209) from one or more controllers (200) for the plurality of track segments, the feedback signals characterizing relative motion between the
determine a fault based on the feedback signals and one or more calibrated characteristics of the
Shirazi does not specifically teach that the inspection apparatus is calibrated. However, Huang teaches a system and method for automatic runtime position sensor gain calibration in a linear motion system, which “describes a system to automatically calibrate gains and/or offsets for each position feedback signal in order to reduce variations between position feedback signals for each sensor in a linear drive system.” (Col. 2, lines 42-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Shirazi to calibrate the position feedback signals, as taught by Huang, in order to reduce variations between feedback signals and reduce step changes or ripple (see Huang, Col. 2, lines 20-38) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 3: Shirazi in view of Huang, as applied to claim 1, further teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein:
the plurality of drive coils (50) are configured to be energized sequentially to induce the travel of the plurality of movers (100) along the track (10), wherein a degree of energization of the plurality of drive coils corresponds to a speed or thrust of the travel of the plurality of movers (Para. [0032]);
the track comprises a plurality of sensors and the feedback signals comprise position signals characterizing the relative motion between the calibrated inspection apparatus and at least one of (i) the plurality of track segments or (ii) the plurality of movers, wherein the position signals indicate a position and speed of each of the plurality of movers or the calibrated inspection mover along the track (Para. [0002], last sentence).
Referring to Claim 4: Shirazi does not specifically teach that the one or more calibrated characteristics of the calibrated inspection apparatus comprise at least one of a calibrated magnet array of the calibrated inspection mover. However, Huang teaches a system and method for automatic runtime position sensor gain calibration in a linear motion system, wherein the one or more calibrated characteristics of the calibrated inspection apparatus comprise at least one of a calibrated magnet array of the calibrated inspection mover (Col. 2, lines 42-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Shirazi to calibrate the magnets on the mover passing the position sensor, as taught by Huang, in order to reduce variations between feedback signals and reduce step changes or ripple (see Huang, Col. 2, lines 20-38) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 5: Shirazi in view of Huang, as applied to claim 1, further teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the feedback signals comprise an actual current through the plurality of drive coils (50), wherein the processing circuitry (204) is configured to determine the fault by performing a track test comprising:
causing sequential energization of the plurality of drive coils according to a commanded current to induce travel of the calibrated inspection mover along the plurality of track segments (Para. [0032]); and
determining, based on the commanded current of the plurality of drive coils and the actual current through the plurality of drive coils, a fault of one of more of the plurality of track segments (Para. [0036]).
Referring to Claim 6: Shirazi teaches comparing the magnitude and direction of the current to a threshold to produce an alert (Para. [0036]), but does not specifically teach identifying a sensor fault of one or more of a plurality of sensors of the track based on at least one of an amplitude or shape of a position signal, as claimed.
However, Huang teaches a system and method for automatic runtime position sensor gain calibration in a linear motion system, wherein determining the fault comprises at least one of:
identifying a sensor fault of one or more of a plurality of sensors (151) of the track (10) based on at least one of an amplitude or shape of a position signal (242) obtained from the one or more of the plurality of sensors differing from an expected amplitude or shape (Col. 10, lines 22-31) (Fig. 9);
identifying a coil (150) fault based on an actual coil current differing from a commanded current of one of the plurality of drive coils (Col. 10, line 62 – Col. 11, line 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Shirazi to identify a sensor fault of one or more of a plurality of sensors of the track based on at least one of an amplitude or shape of a position signal, as taught by Huang, in order to identify and reduce variations between feedback signals and reduce step changes or ripple (see Huang, Col. 2, lines 20-38) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 8: Shirazi teaches determining faults based on feedback signals (Para. [0032-0038]) (Figs. 8), but does not teach the processing circuitry is configured to perform the mover test, as specifically claimed.
However, Huang teaches a system and method for automatic runtime position sensor gain calibration in a linear motion system, wherein the calibrated inspection station comprises a plurality of calibrated sensors, a calibrated coil and current driver, and a calibrated track segment, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform a mover test by:
causing sequential energization of the plurality of drive coils to induce travel of a tested mover of the plurality of movers along the calibrated inspection station (Col. 2, lines 42-49);
operating the calibrated coil according to a predetermined test profile while obtaining position signals from the plurality of calibrated sensors (Col. 7, lines 35-49);
determining, based on at least one of the position signals from the plurality of calibrated sensors or a commanded current of the calibrated coil, a fault (300) at the tested mover (Figs. 12 and 13) (Col. 14, lines 47-59), the fault comprising at least one of a bearing wear fault or a magnet array fault of the tested mover (Col. 14, lines 18-23) (Figs. 9-11) (Col. 12, lines 34-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Shirazi to perform testing using calibrated equipment and energizing equipment according to a test profile to determine faults, as taught by Huang, in order to identify and reduce variations between feedback signals and reduce step changes or ripple (see Huang, Col. 2, lines 20-38) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirazi et al. (US 2019/0079135 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 10,914,620) and in view of Kawaguchi (JP 2011-173673 A).
Referring to Claim 2: Shirazi does not specifically teach that that the calibrated inspection station is positioned on a bypass track defining a bypass path in parallel with one or more of the plurality of track segments, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause a tested mover of the plurality of movers to travel along the bypass path in response to a signal to inspect the tested mover. However, Kawaguchi teaches a carrier system, wherein inspection or maintenance operations are positioned on a bypass track (89) defining a bypass path in parallel with one or more of the plurality of track segments (Fig. 5), wherein a vehicle requiring inspection or maintenance is instructed to enter the bypass and stop (see attached EPO translation, Para. [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Shirazi to provide a calibrated inspection station on a bypass track, as taught by Kawaguchi, in order to reduce or eliminate downtime for inspection or maintenance operations (see Kawaguchi, Para. [0029]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirazi et al. (US 2019/0079135 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 10,914,620) and in view of Miklosovic et al. (US 2021/0341901 A1).
Referring to Claim 9: Shirazi does not specifically teach that the processing circuitry is configured to determine the fault by: determining, based on the feedback signals, the fault and a type of the fault using a neural network trained using aggregated data of the feedback signals and corresponding faults and types of faults. However, Miklosovic teaches induction motor condition monitoring using machine learning, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the fault by: determining, based on the feedback signals, the fault and a type of the fault using a neural network trained using aggregated data of the feedback signals and corresponding faults and types of faults (Para. [0007-0008] and [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Shirazi to use a trained neural network to determine fault types, as taught by Miklosovic, in order to provide enhanced detection techniques that “may help to improve efficiency, reduce operating costs, extend machine life, perform high fidelity simulations and emulations, perform digital twin modeling, verify functionality, predict expected performances, simulate fluctuations, perform mechanical analysis, perform sizing analysis, recommend settings, identify configuration issues, optimize utilization, and identify motion profiles trends” (see Miklosovic, Para. [0096]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 10: Shirazi does not specifically teach that the processing circuitry is further configured to: aggregate the feedback signals associated with the plurality of movers; generate a model of a virtual mover, the model of the virtual mover including attributes that are representative of the plurality of movers; and predict, based on changes of the attributes of the model of the virtual mover over time, a compensation for wear of the plurality of movers. However, Miklosovic teaches induction motor condition monitoring using machine learning, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: aggregate the feedback signals associated with the plurality of movers (Para. [0047]); generate a model of a virtual mover, the model of the virtual mover including attributes that are representative of the plurality of movers (Para. [0048]); and predict, based on changes of the attributes of the model of the virtual mover over time, a compensation for wear of the plurality of movers (Para. [0002-0003] and [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Shirazi to aggregate signals, generate models and predict compensation for wear, as taught by Miklosovic, in order to provide enhanced detection techniques that “may help to improve efficiency, reduce operating costs, extend machine life, perform high fidelity simulations and emulations, perform digital twin modeling, verify functionality, predict expected performances, simulate fluctuations, perform mechanical analysis, perform sizing analysis, recommend settings, identify configuration issues, optimize utilization, and identify motion profiles trends” (see Miklosovic, Para. [0096]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the instant claimed steps of method claims 11-15, note that the operation of the prior structure of claims 1 and 5-8, respectively, inherently requires the method steps as claimed.
Regarding the instant claimed steps of method claims 16-18, note that the operation of the prior structure of claims 1, 8 and 10, respectively, inherently requires the method steps as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 19 and 20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art, including Shirazi, fails to teach processing circuitry configured to determine, based on the actual position differing from the predicted position, a track bearing wear fault or a debris on track fault. Another reference, Miklosovic et al. (US 2021/0341901 A1), teaches induction motor condition monitoring using machine learning, wherein predictive models are used to determine faults, such as bearing faults, using current and other signal data from multiple locations (Para. [0003], [0035], [0070] and [0073]) (Fig. 7). However, Miklosovic fails to teach the specifics of the determination steps recited in claim 7, i.e., determination of a track bearing wear fault or a debris on a track fault as a result of the comparison of the actual and predicted position of a calibrated mover along the track, which is determined responsive to the commanded current or a predictive model. Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Shirazi in view of Miklosovic to meet the specific determination limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 19 and depending claim 20, the prior art, including Shirazi, fails to teach “providing a repair mover, the repair mover comprising at least one of a bumper or a brush; and controlling activation of the plurality of coils to transport the repair mover along a particular location on the track where a fault is detected and clear debris off the track using the bumper or the brush,” as recited in claim 19. Examiner finds that it would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning to modify Shirazi in this manner, specifically transporting a repair mover to the track fault location.
Conclusion
The references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references relate to the state of the art in linear drive system analysis: Aoyama (US 2024/0175883 A1), Huang (US 2019/0077608 A1) (“Huang ‘608”) and Huang (US 2020/0148481 A1) (“Huang ‘481”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617