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 .
Claim(s) Status
Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 9 claims a computer program product which can be interpreted as a signal per se. The applicant can properly address the issue by amended the limitation to recite “a non-transitory computer program product”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 4-5 & 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Borghi et al. (‘Borghi”, EP 3628605 A1, IDS). 1) Regarding claim 1, Borghi discloses a method of monitoring a condition of a movable member (¶¶2, 19) in a linear motor system (¶¶2, 20) comprising a track (Fig. 1: track 303) and at least one movable member (¶18; Fig. 1: independent movable objects 301) coupled to the track (Fig. 1) and configured to move along said track (¶¶2, 18-20), the movable member comprising a vibration sensor (¶19; Fig. 1: sensor 204) thereon (¶19; Fig. 1), the method comprising: positioning the movable member at a monitoring region of the track (Fig. 1 illustrates one of the independent movable objects 301 being at positional region of the track that can be monitored via the sensor, also see ¶¶31-32 disclosure relate to positions of the movable objects), applying vibration to the movable member (Borghi discloses, in ¶¶19, 23 with reference to Fig. 1, that a current is supplied to the track causing vibration data associated with the induced movement of the independent movable objects), and detecting a response of the movable member to the vibration by means of the vibration sensor (¶¶19, 32). 2) Regarding claim 4 the method of claim 1, wherein the applying of the vibration to the movable member comprises applying a predetermined motion profile to the movable member (Borghi discloses, in ¶23, that the current is linked to force required to overcome friction of the track in manner to overcome the friction as the track appearances wear overtime (corresponding to a predetermined motion profile). 3) Regarding claim 5 the method of claim 1, wherein the monitoring region comprises a linear region of the track extending in a direction perpendicular to a gravity acceleration direction (see Borghi Fig. 1 illustrating a forward directional travel (corresponding to a gravity acceleration direction) which interpreted as being parallel to a supported surface, hence the direction pointing downward to the supported would be a direction perpendicular to the gravity acceleration direction). 4) Regarding claim 9, a computer program product loadable in the memory of at least one electronic control unit and comprising software code portions for performing the steps of the method of claim 1 (¶40). 5) Regarding claim 10, Borghi discloses a linear motor system (¶¶2, 20; Fig. 1), comprising: a track (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1), at least one movable member coupled to the track (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1) and configured to move along said track (¶18-20), a processing unit (¶31; Fig. 1: processing unit 201 and/or control unit 302) configured to position the movable member at a monitoring region of the track (¶31 )and apply vibration to the movable member (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1), wherein the movable member comprises a vibration sensor configured to detect a response of the movable member to the vibration applied thereon (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1). 6) Regarding claim 11 the linear motor system of claim 10, wherein the monitoring region comprises a region, preferably linear, where the movable member would lie if no force was applied on the movable member by the linear motor system (see Fig. 1 illustrated that any location on the track would be a region where no force applied, as the current is only applied when propelling the independent movable objects). 7) Regarding claim 12 the linear motor system of claim 10, wherein the vibration sensor comprises at least one inertial sensor and/or a position error sensor and/or a torque sensor (¶19).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 2 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borghi in view of Shintani et al. (“Shintani”, JP 2000316206 A)., 1) Regarding claim 2 the method of claim 1, comprising: comparing the response detected to a predetermined vibration pattern, and checking whether the response differs from the predetermined vibration pattern. Shintani discloses, on page 7: ¶13, the concept of evaluating for abnormal vibration indicating a vibration condition of movable element on a track system exceeding a predetermined value (the examiner interprets any vibration condition that does not exceed the predetermined value as a predetermined pattern). At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of evaluating for abnormal vibration indicating a vibration condition of movable element on a track system exceeding a predetermined value, with the motivation to enhance the abnormality condition detection and monitoring features of the system. As per the limitation if the response substantially corresponds to the predetermined vibration pattern, resuming operation of the movable member. Shintani discloses, on page 7: ¶13, the concept of evaluating vibration exceeding conditions of a movable element that cause the system to initiate a corresponding signal to help maintenance and management of the system, hence if the vibration does not exceed the predetermined value the system will continue operation without generating a corresponding vibration exceeding signal. At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of evaluating vibration exceeding conditions of a movable element that cause the system to initiate a corresponding signal to help maintenance and management of the system, with the motivation to enhance the abnormality condition detection and monitoring features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 14, Borghi discloses a forming assembly configured to form a plurality of packages (Borghi discloses, in ¶¶1-2, that the tracked system relates to system for producing sealed packages via the use of production line (corresponding to an assembly)) and comprising a linear motor system according to claim 10 (see analysis of the rejection of claim 10), the forming assembly comprising: As per the limitation a pair of endless tracks. Borghi discloses, in ¶2, that the system can be applied to production line system. Shintani illustrates, reference to abstract and Fig. 6, the concept of using at a pair of tracks (e.g., 100M and 100S). At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using at a pair of tracks, with the motivation to enhance the track design option of the system. As per the limitation a pair of movable members (Borghi Fig. 1 and Shintani each illustrates at least two movable member, which can be considered a pair), each one of which movably coupled to, and cyclically movable along, one respective track (Shintani Fig. 4 illustrates that the movable members can each be coupled to and move cyclically around 100M), a processing unit configured to position the movable member at a monitoring region of the track and apply vibration to the movable member (see analysis of claims 1 and 10), wherein the movable member comprises a vibration sensor configured to detect a response of the movable member to the vibration applied thereon (see analysis of claims 1 and 10).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borghi in view of Shintani, and in further view of Hoshide et al. (“Hoshide”, CN 108779798 B). 1) Regarding claim 3 the method of claim 2, comprising, if the response fails to substantially correspond to the predetermined vibration pattern, transmitting an alert to a user interface and/or preventing resumption operation of the movable member. Hoshide discloses, on page 8 last paragraph through page 9: ¶1, the concept of providing an alert to a user interface display to inform of abnormal operation. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing an alert to a user interface display to inform of abnormal operation, with the motivation to enhance the abnormality condition detection and monitoring features of the system.
Claim(s) 6, 8 & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borghi in view of Zhou et al. (“Zhou”, US 20200054403 A). 1) Regarding claim 6 the method of claim 1,comprising applying a plurality of vibrations to the movable member, the vibrations having different frequencies. Borghi discloses, in ¶23, that the current is applied to provide enough force to overcome friction even as the wear condition of the track increases, hence the current would be provided at different current amplitude/amplitude/frequency. Zhou discloses, in ¶116, the concept of providing a magnitude and frequency to propel a movable element. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing a magnitude and frequency to propel a movable element, into the system of Borghi for each current amount needed to overcome the track friction, with the motivation to enhance the force generated to overcome the friction of the track. 2) Regarding claim 8 the method according to claim 1, comprising calibrating the movable member at installation by applying at least a vibration comprising calibrating the movable member at installation by applying at least a vibration to the movable member to generate the predetermined vibration pattern. Borghi discloses, in ¶23, that the current is applied to provide enough force to overcome friction even as the wear condition of the track increases, hence the current would be provided at different current amplitude/amplitude/frequency. John discloses, in ¶116, the concept of providing a magnitude and frequency to propel a movable element. John further discloses, in ¶111, the concept of performing current calibration. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing a magnitude and frequency to propel a movable element, into the system of Borghi for each current amount needed to overcome the track friction and the concept of performing current calibration, with the motivation to enhance the force generated to overcome the friction of the track. 3) Regarding claim 16 the method of claim 1, comprising applying a plurality of vibrations to the movable member, the vibrations having different frequencies between 0.5 Hz and 200 Hz. Zhou discloses, in ¶¶103-104, 116, the concept of using multiple frequencies (i.e., 60Hz, 100Hz ) that are between a 0.5 Hz and 200Hz range.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using multiple frequencies (i.e., 60Hz, 100Hz ) that are between a 0.5 Hz and 200Hz range, with the motivation to enhance with the motivation to enhance the force generated to overcome the friction of the track.
4) Regarding claim 17 the method of claim 1, wherein the applying of the vibration to the movable member comprises applying a sinusoidal motion profile to the movable member. Zhou discloses, in ¶¶103-104, 116, the concept of using sinusoidal current to overcome friction.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using sinusoidal current to overcome friction, with the motivation to enhance the force generated to overcome the friction of the track.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borghi in view of Ohashi et al. (“Ohashi”, US 20020029636 A1). 1) Regarding claim 13 the linear motor system of claim 10, wherein the vibration sensor is potted with epoxy resin and fixed to the movable member. In the art of attaching/mounting sensors, Ohashi discloses, in ¶22, the concept of using epoxy resin. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using epoxy resin, with the motivation to enhance the attaching/mounting features of the system.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borghi in view of Duan et al. (CN 112161803 A). 1) Regarding claim 18 the method of claim 1, wherein the vibration sensor comprises: i) at least one motion sensor and at least one rotation sensor; and/or ii) a position error sensor; and/or iii) a torque sensor. Borghi discloses, in ¶19, that the sensor can monitoring any force and discloses the use of motion and torque and position, see ¶¶19 and 24. Duan discloses, on page 3, the concept of configuring a detection device with vibration, torque and displacement features.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of configuring a detection device with vibration, torque and displacement features, with the motivation to enhance the detection features of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7 & 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11982585 B2, system monitoring acceleration of a movable element on a track system. US 2911538 A, using inducing current of magnitude and frequency to overcome friction. US 20160311656 A1, linear track system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2684
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685