DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
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: “nodes for controlling a magnetic bearing”, “node controlling at least one different servo axis…”, and “synchronization module…generating…” in Claim 1; “clocking…using a master node…” in Claim 2; and “synchronization module configured to generate…” in Claim 7.
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.
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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As indicated above, the claim limitation “nodes for controlling a magnetic bearing” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s drawings do not show, nor does the specification recite, any particular structure for performing the claimed function. Rather, the language of the claims is simply repeated with no further description. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
As indicated above, the claim limitation “node controlling at least one different servo axis…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s drawings do not show, nor does the specification recite, any particular structure for performing the claimed function. Rather, the language of the claims is simply repeated with no further description. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
As indicated above, the claim limitation “synchronization module…generating…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s drawings do not show, nor does the specification recite, any particular structure for performing the claimed function. Rather, the language of the claims is simply repeated with no further description. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
As indicated above, the claim limitation “clocking…using a master node…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s drawings do not show, nor does the specification recite, any particular structure for performing the claimed function. Rather, the language of the claims is simply repeated with no further description. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
As indicated above, the claim limitation “synchronization module configured to generate…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s drawings do not show, nor does the specification recite, any particular structure for performing the claimed function. Rather, the language of the claims is simply repeated with no further description. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already 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, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims inherit the indefiniteness of their parent claims and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Number 6,351,048 to Schob et al. (“Schob”).
In reference to Claim 1, Schob discloses a method for synchronizing (See Column 16 Lines 12-19) at least two identical nodes (See Figure 11 Numbers 5A and 5B) for controlling a magnetic bearing (See Figure 11 Number 3, Column 1 Lines 20-46, and Column 6 Line 55 – Column 7 Line 10) connected by a two-way serial data bus (See Figure 1 ‘BUS’ and Column 16 Lines 8-19), with each node controlling at least one different servo axis of the magnetic bearing (See Column 15 Lines 1-4 and 28-59), the method comprising: generating synchronization information (See Column 16 Lines 12-19 and Column 18 Lines 30-33); a synchronization module of each control node generating a synchronization signal upon receipt of the synchronization information (See Column 17 Lines 63-67 and Column 18 Lines 30-33); synchronizing at least one internal clock of each node with the synchronization signal so that the control of all the axes by said nodes is synchronous (See Column 17 Lines 63-67 and Column 18 Lines 2-15 and 19-38).
In reference to Claim 2, Schob discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Schob further discloses clocking the two-way serial data bus using a master node formed by one of the two nodes (See Figure 11 Number 5a and Column 18 Lines 2-5), with the internal clock comprising a communication clock, the bus being clocked by the communication clock of the master node (See Column 18 Lines 2-18).
In reference to Claim 3, Schob discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Schob further discloses that the internal clock comprises a control clock (See Figure 13 ‘5MHz_A’ and Column 18 Lines 10-15), a power clock (See Figure 13 ‘10MHz_A’ and Column 18 Lines 19-24), a measurement clock (See Figure 13 ‘312kHz’ and Column 17 Line 67 – Column 18 Line 2), each node comprises a control module comprising the control clock (See Figure 13 ‘5MHz_A’ and Column 18 Lines 10-15), the power clock (See Figure 13 ‘10MHz_A’ and Column 18 Lines 19-24), the measurement clock (See Figure 13 ‘312kHz’ and Column 17 Line 67 – Column 18 Line 2), and a power converter (See Figure 1 Number 41, Figure 11 Number 4a and Column 15 Lines 36-46) connected to a set of coils of the servo axis (See Figure 1 Numbers 6 and 7 and Column 7 Lines 21-27), the method comprising synchronizing the control clock, the power clock and the measurement clock with the synchronization signal (See Column 16 Lines 12-19 and Column 18 Lines 2-15 and 30-33), controlling the power converter on the basis of data exchanged on the two-way serial data bus and of measurements taken by at least one sensor of the magnetic bearing (See Column 15 Lines 28-59 and Column 16 Lines 12-19), the control module being clocked by the control clock (See Column 18 Lines 10-15), the power converter and the sensor being clocked by the power clock (See Column 18 Lines 19-24) and the measurement clock (See Column 17 Line 67 – Column 18 Line 2), respectively.
In reference to Claim 4, Schob discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 3 above. Schob further discloses that the frequencies of the control clock signal delivered by the control clock, of the power clock signal delivered by the power clock and of the measurement clock signal delivered by the measurement clock are each a multiple of the synchronization signal (See Column 17 Line 63 – Column 18 Line 15).
In reference to Claim 5, Schob discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 2 above. Schob further discloses that the internal clock comprises a control clock (See Figure 13 ‘5MHz_A’ and Column 18 Lines 10-15), a power clock (See Figure 13 ‘10MHz_A’ and Column 18 Lines 19-24), a measurement clock (See Figure 13 ‘312kHz’ and Column 17 Line 67 – Column 18 Line 2), each node comprises a control module comprising the control clock (See Figure 13 ‘5MHz_A’ and Column 18 Lines 10-15), the power clock (See Figure 13 ‘10MHz_A’ and Column 18 Lines 19-24), the measurement clock (See Figure 13 ‘312kHz’ and Column 17 Line 67 – Column 18 Line 2), and a power converter (See Figure 1 Number 41, Figure 11 Number 4a and Column 15 Lines 36-46) connected to a set of coils of the servo axis (See Figure 1 Numbers 6 and 7 and Column 7 Lines 21-27), the method comprising synchronizing the control clock, the power clock and the measurement clock with the synchronization signal (See Column 16 Lines 12-19 and Column 18 Lines 2-15 and 30-33), controlling the power converter on the basis of data exchanged on the two-way serial data bus and of measurements taken by at least one sensor of the magnetic bearing (See Column 15 Lines 28-59 and Column 16 Lines 12-19), the control module being clocked by the control clock (See Column 18 Lines 10-15), the power converter and the sensor being clocked by the power clock (See Column 18 Lines 19-24) and the measurement clock (See Column 17 Line 67 – Column 18 Line 2), respectively.
In reference to Claim 6, Schob discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 5 above. Schob further discloses that the frequencies of the control clock signal delivered by the control clock, of the power clock signal delivered by the power clock and of the measurement clock signal delivered by the measurement clock are each a multiple of the synchronization signal (See Column 17 Line 63 – Column 18 Line 15).
In reference to Claim 7, Schob discloses a control node (See Figure 11 Numbers 5a or 5b) for controlling a magnetic bearing (See Figure 11 Number 3, Column 1 Lines 20-46, and Column 6 Line 55 – Column 7 Line 10) configured to control a servo axis of the bearing (See Column 15 Lines 1-4 and 28-59), the control node comprising: a synchronization module configured to generate a synchronization signal upon receipt of synchronization information (See Column 17 Lines 63-67 and Column 18 Lines 30-33); and at least one internal clock configured to be synchronized with the synchronization signal (See Column 17 Lines 63-67 and Column 18 Lines 2-15 and 19-38).
In reference to Claim 8, Schob discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 7 above. Schob further discloses that the internal clock comprises a control clock (See Figure 13 ‘5MHz_A’ and Column 18 Lines 10-15), a measurement clock (See Figure 13 ‘312kHz’ and Column 17 Line 67 – Column 18 Line 2), and a power clock (See Figure 13 ‘10MHz_A’ and Column 18 Lines 19-24), the node further comprising a control module comprising the control clock (See Figure 13 ‘5MHz_A’ and Column 18 Lines 10-15), the power clock (See Figure 13 ‘10MHz_A’ and Column 18 Lines 19-24), and the measurement clock (See Figure 13 ‘312kHz’ and Column 17 Line 67 – Column 18 Line 2) configured to be synchronized with the synchronization signal (See Column 16 Lines 12-19 and Column 18 Lines 2-15 and 30-33), and comprising a power converter (See Figure 1 Number 41, Figure 11 Number 4a and Column 15 Lines 36-46) configured to control a set of coils of the servo axis (See Figure 1 Numbers 6 and 7 and Column 7 Lines 21-27) on the basis of data exchanged on a two-way serial data bus (See Figure 1 ‘BUS’ and Column 16 Lines 8-19) and of measurements taken by at least one sensor of the magnetic bearing (See Column 15 Lines 28-59 and Column 16 Lines 12-19), the control clock, the power clock, and the measurement clock being respectively configured to clock the control module (See Column 18 Lines 10-15), the converter (See Column 18 Lines 19-24), and the sensor (See Column 17 Line 67 – Column 18 Line 2).
In reference to Claim 9, Schob discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 8 above. Schob further discloses forming a master node (See Figure 11 Number 5a and Column 18 Lines 2-5), with the internal clock comprising a communication clock configured to clock the two-way serial data bus intended to connect said control node to another identical control node (See Column 18 Lines 2-18).
In reference to Claim 10, Schob discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 9 above. Schob further discloses a control system for a magnetic bearing (See Figure 11 Number 3, Column 1 Lines 20-46, and Column 6 Line 55 – Column 7 Line 10) comprising at least one servo axis (See Column 15 Lines 1-4 and 28-59) comprising a set of coils (See Figure 1 Numbers 6 and 7 and Column 7 Lines 21-27), a sensor of the magnetic bearing (See Column 15 Lines 28-59 and Column 16 Lines 12-19), and at least a first control node according to claim 8 (See Figure 11 Number 5a) connected to a two-way serial data bus (See Figure 1 ‘BUS’ and Column 16 Lines 8-19), the power converter of the control module being connected to the set of coils (See Column 15 Lines 36-46 and Column 7 Lines 21-27), and the sensor of the magnetic bearing being connected to the control module (See Column 15 Lines 28-59 and Column 16 Lines 12-19).
In reference to Claim 11, Schob discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 10 above. Schob further discloses a second servo axis (See Column 15 Lines 1-4 and 28-59) comprising a second set of coils (See Figure 1 Numbers 6 and 7 and Column 7 Lines 21-27), a second sensor of the magnetic bearing (See Column 15 Lines 28-59 and Column 16 Lines 12-19), and a second control node according to claim 8 (See Figure 11 Number 5b) connected to the two-way serial data bus (See Figure 1 ‘BUS’ and Column 16 Lines 8-19), the power converter of the control module of the second node being connected to the second set of coils (See Column 15 Lines 36-46 and Column 7 Lines 21-27), and the second sensor of the magnetic bearing being connected to the control module of the second node (See Column 15 Lines 28-59 and Column 16 Lines 12-19).
In reference to Claim 12, Schob discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 9 above. Schob further discloses a control system for a magnetic bearing (See Figure 11 Number 3, Column 1 Lines 20-46, and Column 6 Line 55 – Column 7 Line 10) comprising at least one servo axis (See Column 15 Lines 1-4 and 28-59) comprising a set of coils (See Figure 1 Numbers 6 and 7 and Column 7 Lines 21-27), a sensor of the magnetic bearing (See Column 15 Lines 28-59 and Column 16 Lines 12-19), and at least a first control node according to claim 9 (See Figure 11 Number 5a) connected to a two-way serial data bus (See Figure 1 ‘BUS’ and Column 16 Lines 8-19), the power converter of the control module being connected to the set of coils (See Column 15 Lines 36-46 and Column 7 Lines 21-27), and the sensor of the magnetic bearing being connected to the control module (See Column 15 Lines 28-59 and Column 16 Lines 12-19).
In reference to Claim 13, Schob discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 12 above. Schob further discloses a second servo axis (See Column 15 Lines 1-4 and 28-59) comprising a second set of coils (See Figure 1 Numbers 6 and 7 and Column 7 Lines 21-27), a second sensor of the magnetic bearing (See Column 15 Lines 28-59 and Column 16 Lines 12-19), and a second control node according to claim 9 (See Figure 11 Number 5b) connected to the two-way serial data bus (See Figure 1 ‘BUS’ and Column 16 Lines 8-19), the power converter of the control module of the second node being connected to the second set of coils (See Column 15 Lines 36-46 and Column 7 Lines 21-27), and the second sensor of the magnetic bearing being connected to the control module of the second node (See Column 15 Lines 28-59 and Column 16 Lines 12-19).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0212312 to Kozaki et al. (“Kozaki”).
In reference to Claim 7, Kozaki discloses a control node (See Figure 2 Number 44) for controlling a magnetic bearing (See Figure 2 Number 45 and Paragraph 38) configured to control a servo axis of the bearing (See Paragraphs 37-40), the control node comprising: a synchronization module configured to generate a synchronization signal upon receipt of synchronization information (See Paragraph 83); and at least one internal clock configured to be synchronized with the synchronization signal (See Paragraph 83).
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) 1-2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0324043 to Wang et al. (“Wang”) and US Patent Number 5,760,510 to Nomura et al. (“Nomura”).
In reference to Claim 1, Wang discloses a method for synchronizing (See Paragraph 131) at least two identical nodes (See Paragraph 128 [station for each motion axis]) connected by a two-way serial data bus (See Paragraph 127 [listed bus protocols are all two-way serial data buses]), with each node controlling at least one different servo axis (See Paragraph 128), the method comprising: generating synchronization information (See Paragraph 128 [distribution clock]); a synchronization module of each control node generating a synchronization signal upon receipt of the synchronization information (See Paragraph 129); synchronizing at least one internal clock of each node with the synchronization signal so that the control of all the axes by said nodes is synchronous (See Paragraphs 129 and 131). However, Wang does not explicitly disclose that the nodes are for controlling a magnetic bearing. Nomura discloses at least two identical nodes (See Figure 2 Number 30 and Column 6 Lines 12-19) for controlling a magnetic bearing (See Figure 1 Numbers 3a-3d, Figure 2 Numbers 3a-3b, Column 3 Line 52 – Column 4 Line 10, and Column 4 Lines 39-45) connected by a two-way data bus (See Figure 2 Number 22, Column 5 Lines 28-30, and Column 6 Lines 12-19), with each node controlling at least one different servo axis of the magnetic bearing (See Column 6 Lines 12-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the magnetic bearing control system of Nomura using the node synchronization of Wang, resulting in the invention of Claim 1, in order to yield the predictable result of ensuring that each axis control node is highly synchronized with each other by enabling each to obtain absolute system time with tiny phase difference (See Paragraphs 128 and 131 of Wang), and thus allowing for the multiple axes to synchronously update without taking the complexity of the clock for the actual servo system on the axis into consideration (See Paragraph 130 of Wang).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the synchronization system of Wang using the magnetic bearing of Nomura as the controlled device, resulting in the invention of Claim 1, in order to yield the predictable result of inhibiting displacement of a rotor during rotation by magnetically levitating it to support it without contact (See Column 1 Lines 5-12 of Nomura).
In reference to Claim 2, Wang and Nomura disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Wang further discloses clocking the two-way serial data bus using a master node formed by one of the two nodes (See Paragraph 128), with the internal clock comprising a communication clock, the bus being clocked by the communication clock of the master node (See Paragraphs 127 and 129).
In reference to Claim 7, Wang discloses a control node (See Paragraph 128 [station for each motion axis]) configured to control a servo axis (See Paragraph 128), the control node comprising: a synchronization module configured to generate a synchronization signal upon receipt of synchronization information (See Paragraph 128); and at least one internal clock configured to be synchronized with the synchronization signal (See Paragraphs 129 and 131).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 July 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J CLEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Kim Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4147. 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.
/THOMAS J. CLEARY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175