DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-16 are canceled. Claims 17-38 are new and pending.
Claim Interpretation
Office personnel are to give claims their "broadest reasonable interpretation" in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541,550-551(CCPA 1969). See *also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322(Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow").... The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.... An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.
Claims recite "and/or". The claims reciting "and/or" were interpreted as “or”.
Claim Objections
Claim 31, line 6 includes the typo “are for”. Examiner interprets as “for" for examination purposes.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claims purport to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fail to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claims recite a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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 34-36 and 38 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 applicant regards as the invention.
As to claims 34-36, the cited feature "an engineering platform" makes the claims indefinite, because it fails to point out the precise meaning of the cited feature. The "engineering platform" is not elaborated but merely repeated in the Specification.
Regarding claim 38, line(s) 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 37 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. For claim 37, the identical features are already claimed in the parent 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 17-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 17, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes)
Independent claim 17, Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites:
defining a functional scope of the time-dependent simulation model…
selecting at least one module of the virtual mapping in order to establish the time-dependent simulation model of the drive device with the defined functional scope, in accordance with the functional scope, and configuring in accordance with the functional scope the at least one module with respect to its level of detail
These limitations are substantially drawn to mental concepts: observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter): “Information… is an intangible”.
As to the limitations “defining a functional scope of the time-dependent simulation model”, definitions are mental in nature. These limitations, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be characterized as entailing a user analyzing/deciding/defining (judgments, opinions), that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
As to the limitations "selecting at least one module of the virtual mapping in order to establish the time-dependent simulation model of the drive device with the defined functional scope, in accordance with the functional scope, and configuring in accordance with the functional scope the at least one module with respect to its level of detail", under its broadest reasonable interpretation, “selecting” and “configuring” are mental concepts. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
‘[0010]… Operators, depending on their focus of interest, can select one or more modules of the virtual mapping of the drive device and configure them with respect to their level of detail, in order’
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes).
Independent claim 17, Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the additional element computer-implemented, which provides conventional computer implementation.
As to the limitations "for providing a time-dependent simulation model of a drive device… providing a virtual mapping of the drive device, wherein the virtual mapping is modularly constructed, wherein each module of the virtual mapping is configurable with respect to its level of detail", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations “wherein the drive device comprises an electric machine and a supply unit associated with the electric machine, and comprising a control facility“, they amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 17, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the claim recites the additional element computer-implemented, at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. The implementation on a computing system is not elaborated but merely repeated in the Specification.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations amounting to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception remain as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment even upon reconsideration.
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims, Step 2A, Prong One: The claim limitations further the mental concepts of their independent claims. (See Independent claim 17, Step 2A, Prong One above).
As to the limitations "28… determining a load to be expected for the behavior, to which the electric machine of the drive device is exposed; and using the determined load to be expected to select a real electric machine in accordance with the load to be expected”, “29… wherein the load is a mechanical load”; determinations and selections are mental in nature. These limitations, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be characterized as entailing a user analyzing/deciding/determining (judgments, opinions), that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
As to the limitations "31… using the simulation results are for at least one of the following: selection of a suitable real drive device for an automation systemfor at least one of the following" (underline emphasis added).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes).
Dependent claims, Step 2A Prong two:
As to the limitations “18… associating a sampling time dependent on the level of detail with each module of the virtual mapping”, "20… wherein the at least one module has at least one interface”, “21… wherein in a case of multiple modules, the multiple modules are linked to one another”, “22… wherein the virtual mapping comprises a firmware model of the drive device and a physical model of the drive device, and further comprising: modularly constructing the firmware model and/or the physical model; and allowing each firmware model module or physical model module to be configured”, “23… wherein the firmware model comprises a first model of hardware-related software stored in the control facility, and a second model of control facility software or a copy of the control facility software”, “24… wherein the physical model of the drive device is modularly constructed, wherein each physical model module is a model in each case of a physical component of the drive device”, “25… wherein in a case of each physical model module at least one physical domain to be simulated is selectable and a level of detail of the simulation of the at least one physical domain to be simulated is configurable”, “26… wherein the selecting and configuring of the at least one module of the virtual mapping results in an automatic selection and configuration of at least one further module of the virtual mapping associated with the at least one module”, “27, A computer-aided method for simulating behavior of a drive device, the method comprising: providing a time-dependent simulation model as set forth in claim 17; and incorporating the time-dependent simulation model into an environment model in order to simulate the behavior of the drive device in the environment”, “30… wherein the environment model comprises one or more virtual programmable logic controllers, and further comprising simulating the behavior of the drive device in the environment in order to validate the virtual programmable logic controllers and to commission them”, "31, A method of simulation comprising: providing a time-dependent simulation model of a drive device as set forth in claim 17; simulating the drive device with the time-dependent simulation model in order to obtain simulation results”; they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations “32… wherein the real drive device is part of an automation system“, they amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception.
As to the limitations "33… a computer program embodied on a computer readable storage medium, the computer program comprising commands, which on execution of the computer program by a computer cause said computer to execute a method as set forth in claim 17”, “34… a system, in particular an engineering platform, the system comprising means for executing a method as set forth in claim 17”, “35… a system, in particular an engineering platform, the system comprising means for executing a method as set forth in claim 27”, “36… a system, in particular an engineering platform, the system comprising means for executing a method as set forth in claim 31”, “37… a computer-readable storage medium with a computer program as set forth in claim 33”, “38… a data stream embodied on a computer readable storage medium, which is adapted such as to transmit a computer program as set forth in claim 33”; they provide conventional computer implementation.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations amounting to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception remain as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations providing conventional computer implementation are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. (See Independent claim 17, Step 2B above).
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
As to claims 33 and 37, they claim a medium. Giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, see MPEP 2111; the claim is broad enough to include data medium both statutory and nonstatutory. Examiner notes that a description or definition of "medium" is non-existent in the specification. The specification reads:
"[0007] As well, the invention relates to a computer-readable storage medium with the aforementioned computer program and a data stream which is adapted such that it transmits the aforementioned computer program".
As to claim 38, the claim is not limited to media which falls within a statutory category of invention. “A data stream embodied on a computer readable storage medium, which is adapted such as to transmit” covers a form of energy not limited to embodiments which are tangible, physical articles or objects.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, pages, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Claims 17-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Onodera, (Onodera hereinafter), U.S. Pre–Grant publication 20190348942 (see IDS dated 12/16/2025), taken in view of Thomas Baudisch, (Baudisch hereinafter), International Pub. No. WO2013075909 (see IDS dated 06/14/2023).
As to claim 17, Onodera discloses a computer-implemented (see “[0080] A computer in a field network connected by a fieldbus can be used as the real-time simulator”) method for providing a time-dependent simulation model of a drive device, wherein the drive device comprises an electric machine and a supply unit associated with the electric machine, and comprising a control facility (see “[0025] The virtual verification system… has an actual operation mode in which the drive controller 1 drives the electric motor 8, and a virtual verification mode in which the drive controller 1 is connected to the real-time simulator”), the computer implemented method comprising: defining a functional (see “[0080] A computer in a field network connected by a fieldbus can be used as the real-time simulator 12. For example, in FIG. 1, the command computing unit 21 of the controller 19 may have the functions of the real-time simulator 12. A computer in the field network is connected to the drive controller 1, a robot, a machine tool, a remote input/output (I/O) device, various sensors, and the like via the field network, and is connected to a server and the like via Ethernet (registered trademark) or wirelessly. A computer in the field network can exchange signals required in virtual verification with the drive controller 1 via the field network, and thus, can be utilized as the real-time simulator 12 as described above. In other words, the real-time simulator 12 is a computer in a field network in this case, and, in the virtual verification mode, the drive controller 1 and the real-time simulator 12 transmit and receive signals to be used in virtual verification via the field network“); providing a virtual mapping of the drive device, wherein the virtual mapping is modularly constructed, wherein each module of the virtual mapping is configurable with respect to its level of detail (see “[0083]… level of detail of a simulation model can be changed in accordance with the content to be subjected to virtual verification); selecting at least one module of the virtual mapping (see “[0057] The simulation models installed in the real-time simulator 12 can be changed by being downloaded… modules corresponding to the simulation models are downloaded… and, in accordance with the content to be verified, setting of the simulation models to be implemented, and the levels of detail of the simulation models are changed”) in order to establish the time-dependent simulation model of the drive device with the defined functional (see “[0031]… electrical circuit model unit 14 calculates a response simulating the electrical circuit 6 using an electrical circuit model that is a simulation model simulating the electrical circuit 6 of the drive controller 1. The electric motor model unit 15 calculates a response simulating the electric motor 8 using an electric motor model that is a simulation model simulating the electric motor 8. The mechanical device model unit 16 calculates a response simulating the mechanical device 10 using a mechanical device model that is a simulation model simulating the mechanical device 10”), in accordance with the functional (see “[0057] The simulation models installed in the real-time simulator 12 can be changed by being downloaded… modules corresponding to the simulation models are downloaded… and, in accordance with the content to be verified, setting of the simulation models to be implemented, and the levels of detail of the simulation models are changed. The modules corresponding to the simulation models are processing units that simulate responses of the simulation models, and the electrical circuit model unit 14, the electric motor model unit 15, and the mechanical device model unit 16 are an example of these processing units. Note that the server holds a plurality of modules corresponding to a plurality of simulation models having different levels of detail”).
While Onodera discloses functions, Onodera fails to disclose functional scope.
Baudisch discloses functional scope (see “aim of the method described is an automatic generation of the behavior… model of the electrical/electronic components. This may contain the active chain ranging from the sensor signals up to the derived image of the control input signals and then back… which describes the behavior of the actuators” in 7th page, 4th paragraph).
Onodera and Baudisch are analogous art because they are related to simulating drive devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Baudisch with Onodera, because Baudisch discloses "creating a simulation model for an electrical plant " (see page 1, Abstract) and as a result, Baudisch discloses that "[a]n advantage of the method described is that the simulation model is generated automatically based on the circuit diagrams of the electro-CAD circuit diagram" (see page 2, 3rd ¶ paragraph).
As to claim 18, Onodera discloses associating a sampling time dependent on the level of detail with each module of the virtual mapping (see “[0079] Because the real-time simulator 12 is located outside the drive controller 1, it is possible to change the specification of the real-time simulator 12 in accordance with the simulation model installed therein. To simulate an electrical circuit model by simulation, it is necessary to make the sampling time extremely short. To perform simulation with a very short sampling time in real time, it is necessary to prepare a high-performance real-time simulator. In a case where an operation of a mechanical device that is not highly responsive is to be verified, on the other hand, the electric motor model and the mechanical device model, or only the mechanical device model can be installed, to lower the specification of the real-time simulator”).
As to claim 19, Onodera discloses selecting and configuring multiple different modules of the virtual mapping with respect to their level of detail (see “[0057] The simulation models installed in the real-time simulator 12 can be changed by being downloaded… and, in accordance with the content to be verified, setting of the simulation models to be implemented, and the levels of detail of the simulation models are changed… Note that the server holds a plurality of modules corresponding to a plurality of simulation models having different levels of detail”).
As to claim 20, Onodera discloses wherein the at least one module has at least one interface (see “[0057] The simulation models installed in the real-time simulator 12 can be changed by being downloaded… through a model downloading interface… modules corresponding to the simulation models are downloaded”).
As to claim 21, Onodera discloses wherein in a case of multiple modules, the multiple modules are linked to one another (see “[0057] The simulation models installed in the real-time simulator 12 can be changed by being downloaded… and, in accordance with the content to be verified, setting of the simulation models to be implemented, and the levels of detail of the simulation models are changed… Note that the server holds a plurality of modules corresponding to a plurality of simulation models having different levels of detail”).
As to claim 22, Onodera discloses wherein the virtual mapping comprises a firmware model of the drive device and a physical model of the drive device, and further comprising: modularly constructing the firmware model and/or the physical model (see “[0025] The virtual verification system… has an actual operation mode in which the drive controller 1 drives the electric motor 8, and a virtual verification mode in which the drive controller 1 is connected to the real-time simulator 12 and performs virtual verification. In a case where the virtual verification system 100 operates in the actual operation mode, the drive controller 1 and the controller 19 are set to the actual operation mode. In a case where the virtual verification system 100 operates in the virtual verification mode, the drive controller 1 and the controller 19 are set to the virtual verification mode. The real-time simulator 12 is not used in the actual operation mode, but is used in the virtual verification mode. The drive controller 1 can be connected to the real-time simulator 12, and is capable of driving the electric motor 8. In the actual operation mode, the drive controller 1 is connected to the electric motor 8. In the virtual verification mode, the drive controller 1 is connected to the real-time simulator“); and allowing each firmware model module or physical model module to be configured (see “[0057] The simulation models installed in the real-time simulator 12 can be changed by being downloaded… modules corresponding to the simulation models are downloaded… and, in accordance with the content to be verified, setting of the simulation models to be implemented, and the levels of detail of the simulation models are changed”).
As to claim 23, Onodera discloses wherein the firmware model comprises a first model of hardware-related software stored in the control facility, and a second model of control facility software or a copy of the control facility software (see “[0057] The simulation models installed in the real-time simulator 12 can be changed by being downloaded… and, in accordance with the content to be verified, setting of the simulation models to be implemented, and the levels of detail of the simulation models are changed… Note that the server holds a plurality of modules corresponding to a plurality of simulation models having different levels of detail”).
As to claim 24, Onodera discloses wherein the physical model of the drive device is modularly constructed, wherein each physical model module is a model in each case of a physical component of the drive device (see “[0057] The simulation models installed in the real-time simulator 12 can be changed by being downloaded… and, in accordance with the content to be verified, setting of the simulation models to be implemented, and the levels of detail of the simulation models are changed… Note that the server holds a plurality of modules corresponding to a plurality of simulation models having different levels of detail”).
As to claim 25, Onodera discloses wherein in a case of each physical model module at least one physical domain to be simulated is selectable and a level of detail of the simulation of the at least one physical domain to be simulated is configurable (see “[0057] The simulation models installed in the real-time simulator 12 can be changed by being downloaded… and, in accordance with the content to be verified, setting of the simulation models to be implemented, and the levels of detail of the simulation models are changed… Note that the server holds a plurality of modules corresponding to a plurality of simulation models having different levels of detail”).
As to claim 26, Onodera discloses wherein the selecting and configuring of the at least one module of the virtual mapping results in an automatic selection and configuration of at least one further module of the virtual mapping associated with the at least one module (see “[0057] The simulation models installed in the real-time simulator 12 can be changed by being downloaded… modules corresponding to the simulation models are downloaded… and, in accordance with the content to be verified, setting of the simulation models to be implemented, and the levels of detail of the simulation models are changed”).
As to claim 27, Onodera discloses a computer-aided method for simulating behavior of a drive device, the method comprising: providing a time-dependent simulation model as set forth in claim 17 (see “[0031] The real-time simulator 12 includes… an electrical circuit model unit 14, an electric motor model unit 15, a mechanical device model unit 16, a simulating unit 17 that performs simulations of these simulation models“); and incorporating the time-dependent simulation model into an environment model in order to simulate the behavior of the drive device in the environment (see “[0115] The information processing device… is connected to a cloud server 150 via a network. The information processing device 120 may be an edge computer or the like that gathers various kinds of information in the factory where the mechanical device 10 is installed, for example. The edge computer is a device that is used in a factory in an industrial equipment field, gathers information about a programmable logic controller (PLC) 130, a servo system 140, and the like in the factory via an in-factory network, and is capable of conducting examination, analysis, determination, and the like on each of the devices in real time in accordance with the information”).
As to claim 28, Onodera discloses further comprising: determining a load to be expected for the behavior, to which the electric machine of the drive device is exposed (see “load“ as “physical state quantities“, “[0061] The physical state quantities of the mechanical device model sent from the real-time simulator 12 to the controller 19 are input from the fieldbus input unit 20 as if they were actually-measured signals from the actual mechanical device”); and using the determined load to be expected to select a real electric machine in accordance with the load to be expected (see “[0066]… physical state quantities of the mechanical device model are used for correcting the control computation and the like in the position/speed control and the current control”; “[0060]… if the physical quantities of the mechanical device model unit 16 include a rotational angle and a rotational speed, the rotational angle and the rotational speed of the mechanical device model unit 16 can be substituted for the rotational angle and the rotational speed required in the position/speed control unit”).
As to claim 29, Onodera discloses wherein the load is a mechanical load (see “[0024]… mechanical device 10 is a machine tool, an industrial robot, or manufacturing equipment, for example”).
As to claim 30, Onodera discloses wherein the environment model comprises one or more virtual programmable logic controllers (see “[0115] The information processing device… is connected to a cloud server 150 via a network. The information processing device 120 may be an edge computer or the like that gathers various kinds of information in the factory where the mechanical device 10 is installed, for example. The edge computer is a device that is used in a factory in an industrial equipment field, gathers information about a programmable logic controller (PLC) 130, a servo system 140, and the like in the factory via an in-factory network, and is capable of conducting examination, analysis, determination, and the like on each of the devices in real time in accordance with the information”), and simulating the behavior of the drive device in the environment in order to validate the virtual programmable logic controllers and to commission them (see “[0031] The real-time simulator 12 includes… an electrical circuit model unit 14, an electric motor model unit 15, a mechanical device model unit 16, a simulating unit 17 that performs simulations of these simulation models“).
As to claim 31, Onodera discloses a method of simulation comprising: providing a time-dependent simulation model of a drive device as set forth in claim 17 (see “[0031] The real-time simulator 12 includes… an electrical circuit model unit 14, an electric motor model unit 15, a mechanical device model unit 16, a simulating unit 17 that performs simulations of these simulation models“); simulating the drive device with the time-dependent simulation model in order to obtain simulation results (see “[0031] The real-time simulator 12 includes… an electrical circuit model unit 14, an electric motor model unit 15, a mechanical device model unit 16, a simulating unit 17 that performs simulations of these simulation models“); and using the simulation results are for at least one of the following: selection of a suitable real drive device for an automation system; control and/or configuration of a real drive device (see “[0115] The information processing device… is connected to a cloud server 150 via a network. The information processing device 120 may be an edge computer or the like that gathers various kinds of information in the factory where the mechanical device 10 is installed, for example. The edge computer is a device that is used in a factory in an industrial equipment field, gathers information about a programmable logic controller (PLC) 130, a servo system 140, and the like in the factory via an in-factory network, and is capable of conducting examination, analysis, determination, and the like on each of the devices in real time in accordance with the information”)
As to the limitations “and prevention of errors in operation and/or during commissioning of a real drive device”, Examiner notes that they do not have to be executed. Claim does read "using the simulation results are for at least one of the following" (underline emphasis added).
As to claim 32, Onodera discloses wherein the real drive device is part of an automation system (see “[0115] The information processing device… is connected to a cloud server 150 via a network. The information processing device 120 may be an edge computer or the like that gathers various kinds of information in the factory where the mechanical device 10 is installed, for example. The edge computer is a device that is used in a factory in an industrial equipment field, gathers information about a programmable logic controller (PLC) 130, a servo system 140, and the like in the factory via an in-factory network, and is capable of conducting examination, analysis, determination, and the like on each of the devices in real time in accordance with the information”).
As to claim 33, Onodera discloses a computer program embodied on a computer readable storage medium, the computer program comprising commands, which on execution of the computer program by a computer cause said computer to execute a method as set forth in claim 17 (see “[0080] A computer in a field network connected by a fieldbus can be used as the real-time simulator”).
As to claim 34, Onodera discloses a system, in particular an engineering platform, the system comprising means for executing a method as set forth in claim 17 (see “[0080] A computer in a field network connected by a fieldbus can be used as the real-time simulator”).
As to claim 35, Onodera discloses a system, in particular an engineering platform, the system comprising means for executing a method as set forth in claim 27 (see “[0080] A computer in a field network connected by a fieldbus can be used as the real-time simulator”).
As to claim 36, Onodera discloses a system, in particular an engineering platform, the system comprising means for executing a method as set forth in claim 31 (see “[0080] A computer in a field network connected by a fieldbus can be used as the real-time simulator”).
As to claim 37, Onodera discloses a computer-readable storage medium with a computer program as set forth in claim 33 (see “[0080] A computer in a field network connected by a fieldbus can be used as the real-time simulator”).
As to claim 38, Onodera discloses a data stream embodied on a computer readable storage medium, which is adapted such as to transmit a computer program as set forth in claim 33 (see “[0080] A computer in a field network connected by a fieldbus can be used as the real-time simulator”).
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 8:00 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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016
Prosecution Insights