DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed 08/10/2023.
Claim(s) 1-18 have been considered.
- Claim(s) 1-18 are pending.
- Claim(s) 5-7, and 9 have been amended from the original claim sets and claim(s) 10-18 have been newly added to the original claim sets (prior to examination).
- Claim(s) 2-5, and 10-18 have been indicated to have allowable subject matter over prior arts.
- Claim(s) 1, and 6-9 have been rejected as described below.
- This action is NON-FINAL.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner acknowledges the entry of following Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) document(s) from applicant:
The information disclosure statement(s) filed 08/10/2023, 01/19/2025, and 09/02/2025 has/have been considered by examiner.
Note, one of the references from an IDS has been used by the examiner as an art.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made that this application claims priority of or makes reference to being a 371 of PCT/JP2021/046522 filed 12/16/2021.
Acknowledgment is also made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) from application no JP2021-034801 filed 03/04/2021. The certified copy has been filed in instant application no 18/276,880 on 08/10/2023.
Specification
The disclosure (amended) filed 08/10/2023 is objected to due to having below minor informalities:
The title of the disclosure is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings filed 08/10/2023 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner for examination.
Claim Interpretation – 35. USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are in Claim(s) 1, 8 – position detector detecting a position …;
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 11-14 – load detector detecting a load …;
Claim(s) 3-4 – predictor that acquires … results (data)/acquired from the predictor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Position detector has been interpreted in light of the examples such as a position sensor (such as an optical encoder, etc.) as in specification, [0028].
Load detector has been interpreted in light of the examples such as it includes a strain gauge, etc. as in specification, [0030-32].
Predictor has been interpreted in light of the examples such as it has, for example, a neural network which is constructed as a prediction model (learning model) etc. as in specification, [0035-36].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim(s) 9 recite(s), "A non-transient computer-readable recording medium, recording a control program for causing a computer to function …". Thus, the claim(s) is/are believed to be directed to non-statutory subject matter as it/they does/do not exclude “transitory” medium. A review of applicant’s specification has been performed which has not revealed any specific definition of the “computer-readable medium” used in the claim language towards indicating an exclusion of transitory medium and also did not find any mention of the term “transient” or “non-transient”. For example, while applicant specification 0091 describes “As the recording medium, a "non-transitory tangible medium" such as a ROM (Read Only Memory), a magnetic disk, a card, a semiconductor memory, and a programmable logic circuit can be used.”, 0092 further describes, “Furthermore, the program may be supplied to the computer via any transmission medium (communication network, broadcast wave, etc.) capable of transmitting the program. One aspect of the present invention can also be implemented in the form of a data signal embedded in a carrier wave in which the program is embodied by electronic transmission.”, thus describing computer-readable media to include any communication media, which includes examples such as broadcast wave, a data signal embedded in a carrier wave, etc. Note, some of these examples provided are exemplary transitory form of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), which is described to be part of non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories in MPEP 2106.03(I).
For the purpose of compact prosecution, examiner interprets this limitation as: “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, recording a control program for causing a computer to function as the control device according to claim 1, the control program causing the computer to function as the controller.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf (US 4819467 A) in view of Li (CN 111360509 A – Translated Version).
Regarding claim 1, Graf teaches:
A control device for controlling a … press machine that performs press working on a material by moving a slider in a vertical direction, and comprises a … motor driving the slider, a position detector detecting a position of the slider, and a load detector detecting a load acting on the material, the control device comprising: (Abstract, Fig. 1-9, C3-11; Also see Fig. 4 – ram member 6 (i.e., slider) and then C6, L24-29 teach a control signal from processor 15 is then applied on line 8 to hydraulic control 7, and causes ram 6 to begin downward movement. At a plurality of vertical positions, the actual vertical position of ram 6 as sensed by position encoders 9 is determined, and stored in memory in processor 15. C2, last para also teaches the adaptive control system includes position encoders (one at each end) for sensing the position of the ram to produce a digital ram position signal. Load transducers in the form of load cells associated with both of the ram hydraulic pistons and cylinders produce a load signal representative of the instantaneous force supplied to the workpiece. Strain gauges mounted to the housings may also be used for this purpose.)
a controller controlling the … motor by using a position detection result of the position detector and a load detection result of the load detector, (Fig. 4, C3, L43-46 teach the control system for controlling a conventional two cylinder hydraulic press brake. See in fig. 4 - processor 15 (i.e., controller), position encoders 9 for detection and outputting of position data, and load transducers/load cells 11, etc. mechanisms described in C4, para 1-4.)
wherein the controller performs: a lowering operation of lowering the slider toward a bottom dead center position which is a lowest point position of the slider, (C10, L54-58 teaches the processor 15 then starts the ram moving downwardly (when the operator depresses the foot switch) until the punch P approaches within a predetermined distance (DIETOP+TNOM+0.1) of the calculated upper surface of the die (DIETOP).)
a stopping operation of stopping the slider at the bottom dead center position, (Besides c2, last para that teaches the calculation of ram reversal position, see C11, L31-43 teach the value of YL is calculated for each of the actual force measurements. A test is then made to determine whether the actual ram position is equivalent to the calculated position YL, taking into account the ram overshoot OC as described earlier. If this condition is not met, indicating that the ram has not yet reached the calculated reversal point to produce the desired bend angle, the value of YL is recalculated. This iterative process continues until the ram position is within the overshoot distance of the calculated ram reversal position, whereupon a signal is produced from processor 15 on output line 8 to reverse the direction of travel of the ram.)
and a raising operation of raising the slider from the bottom dead center position, as operations of a series of steps in the press working, (C11, L57-59 teach the main processing of FIG. 7B then continues to raise the ram, and await a subsequent command to perform another bending operation.)
the controller determines whether or not the load acting on the material is in a converged state based on the load detection result during the stopping operation, (C11, L21-43 teach the processing then seeks the intersection of the plastic portion of the loading curve with the unloading curve, which represents the point YL at which the ram should be reversed. This value of YL (the point of ram reversal) is calculated for each of the actual force measurements. A test is then made to determine whether the actual ram position is equivalent to the calculated position YL, taking into account the ram overshoot OC as described earlier. If this condition is not met, indicating that the ram has not yet reached the calculated reversal point to produce the desired bend angle, the value of YL is recalculated. This iterative process continues until the ram position is within the overshoot distance of the calculated ram reversal position, whereupon a signal is produced from processor 15 on output line 8 to reverse the direction of travel of the ram.)
and the controller performs the raising operation in response to determining that the load acting on the material is in the converged state. (As above, C11, L38-43 teach this iterative process continues until the ram position is within the overshoot distance of the calculated ram reversal position, whereupon a signal is produced from processor 15 on output line 8 to reverse the direction of travel of the ram. The position (YACTF(1)) at which the reversal signal on processor output line 8 was given is stored, and a test made to determine whether the ram has begun to change direction.)
However, Graf does not explicitly disclose the press machine to be a servo press machine comprising a servo motor (of the press machine) as the motor.
Li teaches the press machine to be a servo press machine comprising a servo motor (of the press machine) as the motor. (See abstract teaches a press machine, including a mechanism that comprises a servo motor, an angle coder and the torque sensor, the torque sensor is provided with an upper assistant shaft. Also, last para of p2 teaches the servo motor drives the upper power shaft to rotate, observing the torque through a torque sensor number displaying, when the torque reaches the preset time, indicates that has been rotated to the limit position of the one side, recording the rotating angle value. See also step S82, S83 described from Fig. 7 and Fig. 13 in page 8 also teach the pressing arrangement including servo motor, an angle encoder, a torque sensor, etc.)
Accordingly, as Graf and Li are directed to press machine monitoring and control technology, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of including the press machine to be a servo press machine comprising a servo motor as the motor as part of the pressing arrangement, as taught by Li to the monitoring and control system with controller controlling the ram position including ram reversal position based on various conditions upon considering sensor(s)’ data as taught by Graf. The combination would have been motivated in order to take advantage of the well-known feature of monitoring and control of presses (such as a hydraulic press as in Graf) in a way that would have allowed for precise, programmable control (such as over the ram's speed, force, and position) ensuring the production quality, as evident in Li, abstract, last para of p2, etc.
Regarding claim 6, Graf and Li teach all the elements of claim 1.
Li further teaches:
wherein the load detector is a load detector that detects the load acting on the material by detecting a torque of the servo motor. (As above, see abstract teaches a press machine, including a mechanism that comprises a servo motor, an angle coder and the torque sensor, the torque sensor is provided with an upper assistant shaft. Also, last para of p2 teaches the servo motor drives the upper power shaft to rotate, observing the torque through a torque sensor number displaying, when the torque reaches the preset time, indicates that has been rotated to the limit position of the one side, recording the rotating angle value. See also step S82, S83 described from Fig. 7 and Fig. 13 in page 8 also teach the pressing arrangement including servo motor, an angle encoder, a torque sensor, etc.)
Accordingly, as torque detection utilizing torque sensors appears to have been one of the well-known alternative options for press machine motor control arrangements as in Li, p2, p8, etc., the motivation to combine the teachings would have been similar to the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 8, Graf teaches:
A control method for controlling a … press machine that performs press working on a material by moving a slider in a vertical direction, and comprises a … motor driving the slider, a position detector detecting a position of the slider, and a load detector detecting a load acting on the material, the control method comprising: (Abstract, Fig. 1-9, C3-11; Also see Fig. 4 – ram member 6 (i.e., slider) and then C6, L24-29 teach a control signal from processor 15 is then applied on line 8 to hydraulic control 7, and causes ram 6 to begin downward movement. At a plurality of vertical positions, the actual vertical position of ram 6 as sensed by position encoders 9 is determined, and stored in memory in processor 15. C2, last para also teaches the adaptive control system includes position encoders (one at each end) for sensing the position of the ram to produce a digital ram position signal. Load transducers in the form of load cells associated with both of the ram hydraulic pistons and cylinders produce a load signal representative of the instantaneous force supplied to the workpiece. Strain gauges mounted to the housings may also be used for this purpose.)
a lowering operation step of lowering the slider toward a bottom dead center position which is a lowest point position of the slider; (C10, L54-58 teaches the processor 15 then starts the ram moving downwardly (when the operator depresses the foot switch) until the punch P approaches within a predetermined distance (DIETOP+TNOM+0.1) of the calculated upper surface of the die (DIETOP).)
a stopping operation step of stopping the slider at the bottom dead center position; (Besides c2, last para that teaches the calculation of ram reversal position, see C11, L31-43 teach the value of YL is calculated for each of the actual force measurements. A test is then made to determine whether the actual ram position is equivalent to the calculated position YL, taking into account the ram overshoot OC as described earlier. If this condition is not met, indicating that the ram has not yet reached the calculated reversal point to produce the desired bend angle, the value of YL is recalculated. This iterative process continues until the ram position is within the overshoot distance of the calculated ram reversal position, whereupon a signal is produced from processor 15 on output line 8 to reverse the direction of travel of the ram.)
and a raising operation step of raising the slider from the bottom dead center position; (C11, L57-59 teach the main processing of FIG. 7B then continues to raise the ram, and await a subsequent command to perform another bending operation.)
wherein the control method comprises repeatedly executing a sub-step of determining whether or not the load acting on the material is in a converged state based on a load detection result during the stopping operation step, (C11, L21-43 teach the processing then seeks the intersection of the plastic portion of the loading curve with the unloading curve, which represents the point YL at which the ram should be reversed. This value of YL (the point of ram reversal) is calculated for each of the actual force measurements. A test is then made to determine whether the actual ram position is equivalent to the calculated position YL, taking into account the ram overshoot OC as described earlier. If this condition is not met, indicating that the ram has not yet reached the calculated reversal point to produce the desired bend angle, the value of YL is recalculated. This iterative process continues until the ram position is within the overshoot distance of the calculated ram reversal position, whereupon a signal is produced from processor 15 on output line 8 to reverse the direction of travel of the ram.)
and the control method proceeds to the raising operation step in response to determining that the load acting on the material is in the converged state. (As above, C11, L38-43 teach this iterative process continues until the ram position is within the overshoot distance of the calculated ram reversal position, whereupon a signal is produced from processor 15 on output line 8 to reverse the direction of travel of the ram. The position (YACTF(1)) at which the reversal signal on processor output line 8 was given is stored, and a test made to determine whether the ram has begun to change direction.)
However, Graf does not explicitly disclose the press machine to be a servo press machine comprising a servo motor (of the press machine) as the motor.
Li teaches the press machine to be a servo press machine comprising a servo motor (of the press machine) as the motor. (See abstract teaches a press machine, including a mechanism that comprises a servo motor, an angle coder and the torque sensor, the torque sensor is provided with an upper assistant shaft. Also, last para of p2 teaches the servo motor drives the upper power shaft to rotate, observing the torque through a torque sensor number displaying, when the torque reaches the preset time, indicates that has been rotated to the limit position of the one side, recording the rotating angle value. See also step S82, S83 described from Fig. 7 and Fig. 13 in page 8 also teach the pressing arrangement including servo motor, an angle encoder, a torque sensor, etc.)
Accordingly, as Graf and Li are directed to press machine monitoring and control technology, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of including the press machine to be a servo press machine comprising a servo motor as the motor as part of the pressing arrangement, as taught by Li to the monitoring and control system with controller controlling the ram position including ram reversal position based on various conditions upon considering sensor(s)’ data as taught by Graf. The combination would have been motivated in order to take advantage of the well-known feature of monitoring and control of presses (such as a hydraulic press as in Graf) in a way that would have allowed for precise, programmable control (such as over the ram's speed, force, and position) ensuring the production quality, as evident in Li, abstract, last para of p2, etc.
Regarding claim 9, Graf and Li teach all the elements of claim 1.
Graf further teaches:
A non-transient computer-readable recording medium, recording a control program for causing a computer to function as the control device according to claim 1, the control program causing the computer to function as the controller. (See the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above; Graf, C4, L56-62 teach, “A flow diagram for the control program used with processor 15 in the adaptive control of the present invention is illustrated in FIGS. 5A-5C, 6A-6D, and 7A-7B. As is well known in the computer processing art, the control program illustrated by these flow diagrams may be implemented as hardware or firmware in the ROM associated with processor 15.”)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf (US 4819467 A) in view of Li (CN 111360509 A – Translated Version) in further view of Venkataram (Tablet compression force measurement using strain gauges. Article. [online]. 1996).
Regarding claim 7, Graf and Li teach all the elements of claim 1.
Graf further teaches:
wherein the load detector is a load detector that comprises a strain gauge … which transmits at least part of a load from the slider to the material, and detects the load acting on the material by detecting an amount of strain with the strain gauge. (C2, last para teaches the adaptive control system includes position encoders (one at each end) for sensing the position of the ram to produce a digital ram position signal. Load transducers in the form of load cells associated with both of the ram hydraulic pistons and cylinders produce a load signal representative of the instantaneous force supplied to the workpiece. Strain gauges mounted to the housings may also be used for this purpose. See also C6, L47-58 teach, “The Force Floor subroutine calculates the average force output from load transducer 11 during the small amount of ram travel immediately before punch P contacts the upper surface of workpiece W. … As can be seen in FIG. 8, which is a plot of the force measured by load transducers 11 as a function of decreasing distance between punch P and the upper surface of V die D, the value IFAVG provides a minimum force floor to which all subsequent force measurements are referenced.”)
While Graf implicitly teaches a strain gauge’s placement in the limitation below (see Fig. 4 illustrates the load transducers are connected to the structural frame 2 which is on/around the ram member 6),
Graf and Li do not explicitly teach the placement of the strain gauge “provided on a punch”.
Venkataram explicitly teaches the placement of the strain gauge “provided on a punch” (abstract teaches the measurement of the compression force using strain gauges mounted in two different configurations: upper punch and lower pin. Good linearity between applied force and measured strain was observed. P331, section 3.1 describes results and discussion regarding alternative strain gauge mounting locations, which continues to p332, 1st para - With respect to the punches, it was determined that the upper punch (as opposed to the lower punch) was a good starting point for strain measurement for the following reasons: it is a direct load carrying member, the calculated strain was satisfactory (above 500 microstrains), and instrumentation was relatively easy.)
Accordingly, as Graf, Li, and Venkataram are directed to press machine monitoring and control technology, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of placing a strain gauge on a punch, as taught by Venkataram to the monitoring and control system with controller controlling the ram position including ram reversal position based on various conditions upon considering sensor(s)’ data which includes strain gauge measurements as taught by Graf and Li. The combination would have been motivated in order to take advantage of the well-known feature of monitoring and control of presses in a way that would have allowed for satisfactory strain measurement from a direct load carrying member utilizing relatively easy instrumentation while utilizing one of the well-known alternative options for the strain gauge placement, as evident in Venkataram, abstract, P331, section 3.1 continued to p332, 1st para, etc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-5, and 10-18 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as the limitations are not described or suggested by the prior arts of record (including any pertinent art(s)) alone, or in combination.
Claim 2, as amended, recites:
The control device according to claim 1, wherein the controller determines that the load acting on the material is in the converged state in response to a difference between the load detection result newly acquired from the load detector and an average value of the load detection result within a past predetermined period being less than a preset first threshold value.
Regarding claim 2, based on thorough review and search performed, the closest prior art(s) identified as prior art of record is/are:
Suzuki (US 10081151 B2) – The disclosure of this art is from the technology of servo motor control, which generally describes some of the structures of the control arrangements for the machine (Fig. 1-3) and also includes some historical reference sensing value and comparisons for correction after continuous pressing (C9, last para continued to C10, para2) along with utilization of detection of a change in the torque (i.e., interpreted as load detection, but no average values are taught) of the servomotor for position adjustments (C10, para3), but does not teach/suggest the average value related concept. Thus, this art does not exactly teach/suggest the overall recited combination of limitations of claim 2 especially the specific conditional converged state determination aspect, as amended.
WU (CN 109669342 A) – The disclosure of this art is from the technology of Converter Control, which generally describes some standard deviation related comparison (although close to the average concept, not exactly what’s needed for claim 2 limitations) for convergence state determination, and also that is for a converter control system such as in a transformer control system (abstract, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, etc.) and not anything close to servo motor/servo press control technology. Thus, this art does not exactly teach/suggest the overall recited combination of limitations of claim 2 especially the specific conditional converged state determination aspect, as amended.
Accordingly, prior arts of record, Graf (US 4819467 A), Li (CN 111360509 A – Translated Version), Suzuki (US 10081151 B2), and WU (CN 109669342 A – Translated Version), alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claim 2.
Note, claims 11 and 15 depend from claim 2.
Claim 3, as amended, recites:
The control device according to claim 1, further comprising a predictor that acquires the load detection result from the load detector, obtains a load prediction value which is a prediction value of the load acting on the material after a predetermined time from time-series data of the load detection result acquired, and outputs the load prediction value to the controller,
wherein the controller determines whether or not the load acting on the material is in the converged state by using the load prediction value during the stopping operation.
Regarding claim 3, based on thorough review and search performed, the closest prior art(s) identified as prior art of record is/are:
Essa et al. (Model predictive force control of hardware implementation for electro-hydraulic servo system. Article. [online]. 2018) hereinafter Essa – This article is from the technology of model predictive control, which describes that a general block diagram of the MPC includes two essential units, namely prediction and controller units, as shown in Figure 6. The prediction unit predicts the system future behavior based on the control signal, disturbance and its current output over a finite prediction horizon and also includes some general concept of utilization of forecasted output(s) in reducing various objective functions subject to the system constraints (Fig. 6, p1439 last para continued to p1440 para1, etc.), but does not teach/suggest the specific conditional converged state determination aspect. Thus, this art does not exactly teach/suggest the overall recited combination of limitations of claim 3 especially the specific conditional converged state determination aspect, as amended.
Accordingly, prior arts of record, Graf (US 4819467 A), Li (CN 111360509 A – Translated Version), and Essa (Model predictive force control of hardware implementation for electro-hydraulic servo system. Article. [online]. 2019), alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claim 3.
Note, claims 4-5, 10, 12-14, and 16-18 depend from claim 3.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009,158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Pertinent Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Senda et al. (US 20110132209 A1) relates to a controller for an electric servo press for linearly driving a slide through an intermediation of a rotary-to-linear motion converting mechanism for rotating a decentering shaft by a rotational output of a servo motor to convert rotation of the decentering shaft into linear motion, to perform press working. … It also describes various control modes including torque control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARZIA T MONTY whose telephone number is (571)272-5441. The examiner can normally be reached on M-T, R-F: 11am -5pm (approximately). 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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5441.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARZIA T MONTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117