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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application 21165783.8 filed in Europe on March 30, 2021 in this this National Stage application.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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.
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) 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.
Claims 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use generic placeholder(s), such as “an arithmetic unit” coupled with functional language “configured in order to execute a method” that is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The written description of the specification implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. A review of the specification shows that the following teaches the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation "an arithmetic unit:” Paragraph 0050 states that: “that the arithmetic unit comprises a machine-readable, for example volatile or nonvolatile, memory, on which machine executable components can be stored, and a processor operatively coupled to the machine-readable memory, which is configured to execute the machine-executable components.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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:
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 Objections
Claim 44 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 44 begins in the second paragraph: “monitoring control target” but should probably read: “monitoring the control target.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 44 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 44 begins the claim with “A method, comprising…” and based on the antecedent basis issues as rejected below, the claim seems to have the structure of an independent claim. However, the claim as stated in line 9 (“…a method of claim 26…”) is dependent on claim 26. Given the different limitations of the claim, if the element of “a method of claim 26” was deleted in any subsequent amendment a restriction/election may have to be filed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 44, 47, 48, 51, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Each claim contains the element “a control target;” however, this element was first introduced in base claim 26 and thus should read “the control target.” Appropriate action is required.
Claims 44, 47, 48, 51, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Each claim contains the element “a servo drive control device;” however, this element was first introduced in base claim 26 and thus should read “the servo drive control device.” Appropriate action is required.
Claims 44, 47, 48, 51, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Each claim contains the element “a servo-driven shaft;” however, this element was first introduced in base claim 26 and thus should read “the servo-driven shaft.” Appropriate action is required.
Claims 44, 47, 48, 51, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Each claim contains the element “a friction effect;” however, this element was first introduced in base claim 26 and thus should read “the friction effect.” Appropriate action is required.
Claims 47, 48, 51, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Regarding claims 47, 48, 51, and 52, it is unclear if the claims encompasses a system and/or a computer program product; or a method. More specifically, the limitations of “a system…" or “a computer program product…” that depends on base claim 26 which is a method claim, embrace or overlap two different statutory classes of invention of an apparatus and a method. The court determined in IPXL Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 77 UDPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005) that claims with a device structure and a method step therein are indefinite under 112(b) because it cannot be determined when the claim is infringed. Additionally, combining two separate statutory classes of invention in a single claim raises a serious question for a manufacturer or seller regarding infringement. Therefore, a claim directed to more than one different statutory class of invention is not sufficiently precise to provide competitors with an accurate determination of the "metes and bounds" of protection involved so that an evaluation of the possibility of infringement may be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty, as discussed by the court in In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970), stated at 166 USPQ 208. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II): “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).” For the limitations in question, the Examiner suggests an amendment that begins the claims with standard language of “A system” or “A computer program product” for determining compensation parameters…” and then include all the elements of base claim 26 expressed as a system or a computer program product code having structure. Appropriate action is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 - 52 are allowable over the prior art of record pending resolving all intervening issues such as the claim objections, the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections, and possibly any amendments as a result of the claim interpretation(s) above. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance pending final recitation of the claims. The prior art does not disclose all the elements of independent claim 26 especially: determining the compensation parameters by a substitution model mapping error signals to compensation signals with the substitution model using the first error signal, the compensation parameters defining a compensation signal; generating, on occurrence of the at least one disturbance, the compensation signal based on the compensation parameters with the servo drive control device, in order to reduce a subsequent error that can be attributed to the disturbance; and providing the compensation signal to compensate for at least one disturbance.
The instant application is distinguish over the closest following prior art:
Fujita et al. (US PG Pub. No. 20180133860). Fujita teaches a portion of claim 26 such as a method for determining compensation parameters comprising: (Par. 0005: “…adjust he various parameters, it is necessary to measure the amount of deviation of the motion trajectory from the command trajectory with an accuracy of a few micrometers to a few hundreds of micrometers. In Patent Literatures 1, 2, and 3, methods of measuring and detecting a machine motion trajectory are disclosed.” Fujita also teaches compensate[tion] in 14 instances.)
providing a first test parameter set; performing an operating process with a servo drive control device; controlling a control target during the operating process by the servo drive control device, wherein at least one disturbance occurs during operation of the control target because of a friction effect occurring during operation at at least one reversal point of a servo-driven shaft of the control target; (Par. 0075: “Additionally, the direction of friction applied is reversed at a motion-direction reversal position, and thus, an abrupt extraneous disturbance force is applied to the movable shaft. Hence, it is known that feedback control cannot completely inhibit a position deviation from occurring and causes an error. A typical example is a trajectory error called a lost motion or a stick motion caused during an arc motion. In an arc motion using the x axis and the y axis, sine wave commands that are 90 degrees out of phase with each other are provided to the x-axis motor lx and the y-axis motor 1y.”)
receiving a first measurement signal as feedback; (The motion trajectory in the detector positions, which protrudes outward of the circle at the quadrant switching positions, is called a stick motion. It has been clarified that a stick motion is caused by a delay in feedback control due to the reversal of the direction in which friction is applied.”)
determining a first error signal from the first measurement signal; (Par. 0007: “a method of inhibiting a trajectory error by feeding back the detected speed or acceleration component of the trajectory error is also disclosed.” However, Fujita does not teach the remaining elements of independent claim 26.
Yutkowitz (US Patent No. 6,865,499), teaches some part of the instant application. Yutkowitz teaches a method for determining compensation parameters comprising: (Par. 18: “One embodiment of the present invention is directed towards a method fortuning compensation parameters in a motion control system associated…”)
providing a first test parameter set; (Par. 852: “For example, referring now to FIG. 32, one embodiment of the present invention involves providing a graphical user interface (GUI) that enables a user to specify test parameters, manually change configuration data, view and analyze measurement/analysis results, and initiate a test sequence. One exemplary approach to accomplishing this involves an interface that can contain test-specific objects such as those listed below:”)
performing an operating process with a servo drive control device; (Par. 176: “One common linear axis mechanism involves a rotary motor that drives a ballscrew.”)
controlling a control target during the operating process by the servo drive control device, wherein at least one disturbance occurs during operation of the control target because of a friction effect occurring during operation at at least one reversal point of a servo-driven shaft of the control target; (Par. 254: “The amplification of the best fit radius over the ideal radius relative to the magnitude of the friction reversal error depends mostly on the angular duration of the friction error, which itself is related (primarily) to the velocity loop's integrator time constant and the circle frequency. To assess the degree to which friction errors may bias the best fit radius, a worst case scenario could be considered to get an approximate value for the largest expected angle of the reversal spike.”)
generating a first test compensation signal during the performance of the operating process with the servo drive control device based on the first test parameter set; (Par. 2: “1) specify test conditions; 2) automatically create the motion for measurements related to the test condition; 3) initiate the motion; 4) collect the data; 5) analyze the data; and 6) update the compensation of the control based on the data.”)
receiving a first measurement signal as feedback; (Par. 176: “A conventional linear motion machine tool axis includes an accurate feedback measurement to move to the correct position. Axis scale errors can be created by an inaccurate feedback mechanism or an inaccurate parameter for converting a feedback measurement from, for example, a rotary device to linear displacement.” See also Par. 841, 849, and 851.)
determining a first error signal from the first measurement signal; (Par. 0176)
Yutkowitz does not teach determining the compensation parameters by a substitution model mapping error signals to compensation signals with the substitution model using the first error signal, the compensation parameters defining a compensation signal; generating, on occurrence of the at least one disturbance, the compensation signal based on the compensation parameters with the servo drive control device, in order to reduce a subsequent error that can be attributed to the disturbance; and providing the compensation signal to compensate for at least one disturbance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD G ERDMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0177. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am - 5pm EST; Off every other Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini S. Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/CHAD G ERDMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116