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 .
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Examiner decided to withdraw 112 rejections because applicant’s amendment to the claims overcome the rejections.
Examiner decided to maintain abstract objections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ arguments on page 6-7 applicant’s argues “Applicant respectfully submits that Nagata fails to teach or suggest an automatic parameter adjustment device that includes "a plurality of facility models that model a facility" and "a control parameter setter that sets a plurality of first control parameters for use in a first trial to the plurality of facility models, and sets a second control parameter for use in the first trial to the facility", in combination with the other elements recited in claim 1”. Examiner respectfully disagree because Nagata paragraph 0012-0016 teaches a plurality of facility models that model a facility (there are multiple motors and motor are model) and state amount comparison unit 31 compare with its threshold values (see further 0016-0022).
Specification (abstract)
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagata et al. JP2004328829A (hereinafter “Nagata”).
As to claim 1, Nagata teaches an automatic parameter adjustment device (paragraph 0012-0013 “control parameter adjustment unit 33”) comprising: a plurality of facility models that model a facility (paragraph 0007-0010 “a simulation unit having a motor model that simulates the motor, a mechanism model unit that simulates the mechanism, and a control model unit that simulates the motor control unit”); a control parameter setter that sets a plurality of first control parameters for use in a first trial to the plurality of facility models, and set a second control parameter for use in the first trial to the facility (paragraph 0016 “control unit 11 of the actual machine unit 10, Kpa<sub>０</sub> and Kv<sub>０</sub> are set as initial values for the position loop gain and speed loop gain before adjustment”); and a comparer that compares a model operation result of the first trial of the plurality of facility models under the plurality of first control parameters with an actual machine operation result of the first trial of the facility under the second control parameter (paragraph 0016-0017 “state variable comparison unit 31, and a state variable comparison value (difference in speed FB)”), wherein the control parameter setter selects a control parameter for use in a second trial based on a first comparison result between the model operation result of the first trial and the actual machine operation result of the first trial (paragraph 0016-0020 “evaluation unit 32 determines whether the obtained state quantity comparison value is within a predetermined threshold and whether high-frequency components are present. By using the accumulated values of the state variables at regular intervals, an average comparison becomes possible”).
As to claim 7, is related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. JP2004328829A (hereinafter “Nagata”) in view of Takashi et al. JP2017102619 (hereinafter “Tasashi”).
As to claim 2, Nagata teaches all the limitation of the base claims as outlined above.
Nagata does not explicitly teach further comprising a model updater that updates the plurality of facility models based on the first comparison result.
However, Tasashi teaches further comprising a model updater that updates the plurality of facility models based on the first comparison result (paragraph 0014-0016 “control target model is updated”).
Nagata and Tasashi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to adjustment device.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above adjustment device, as taught by Nagata, and incorporating a model updater that updates the plurality of facility models, as taught by Tasashi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve monitoring, control parameters and their values in various ways, obtain movement of the control amount output by the controlled object in response to the operation amount given from the control device at that time, And repeating comparing it with the control target amount, thereby finding the optimum value of the control parameter, as suggested by Tasashi (paragraph 0002).
As to claim 3, the combination of Nagata and Tasashi teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Tasashi further teaches wherein the comparer compares a plurality of model evaluation values representing the model operation result of the first trial with an actual machine evaluation value representing the actual machine operation result of the first trial, and wherein when the plurality of model evaluation values are higher than the actual machine evaluation value by a predetermined first difference, the model updater updates the plurality of facility models such that the plurality of model evaluation values are closer to the actual machine evaluation value, and the control parameter setter selects the control parameter for use in the second trial based on the first control parameter corresponding to the model evaluation value closest to the actual machine evaluation value (paragraph 0014-0024 and claim 1-3 “control parameter adjustment apparatus for adjusting a control parameter held by a control system that controls a control object based on a control parameter, the control parameter adjustment apparatus comprising: A model updating section for updating a control object model which is a target model; a simulation using the updated controlled object model is repeatedly performed by searching for a control parameter in a first range, and an optimum value of the control parameter and A first search unit that searches for a control parameter within a second range that is narrower than the first range determined by the candidate extracted by the first search unit And a second searching section for repeatedly operating the controlled object and obtaining an operation result of the controlled object”).
As to claim 4, the combination of Nagata and Tasashi teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Tasashi further teaches wherein when the plurality of model evaluation values are lower than the actual machine evaluation value by a predetermined second difference, the model updater updates the plurality of equipment models such that the plurality of model evaluation values are closer to the actual machine evaluation value, and the control parameter setter selects the control parameter for use in the second trial based on the second control parameter (paragraph 0013-0020 and 0064-0074).
As to claim 5, the combination of Nagata and Tasashi teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Nagata further teaches wherein when the plurality of model evaluation values are not higher than the actual machine evaluation value by the predetermined first difference, and the plurality of model evaluation values is not lower than the actual machine evaluation value by the predetermined second difference, the control parameter setter selects the control parameter for use in the second trial based on the best one of the plurality of model evaluation values and the actual machine evaluation value (paragraph 0017-0019 “actual machine is too high compared to the appropriate value, the control system will become oscillating and high-frequency vibrations will be superimposed on the speed FB. Therefore, the value just before the high-frequency component appears is the optimal value.Therefore, if the high-frequency component exceeds the threshold value, the speed loop gain Kv<sub>０</sub> of the motor control unit 11 and the control model unit 21 are reset to a smaller value Kv<sub>１</sub> and the adjustment is repeated. During this adjustment, the value immediately after it falls below the threshold from being above the threshold is taken as the optimal value Kv<sub>２</sub>, and the adjustment is terminated. Conversely, if there are no high-frequency components, the aforementioned state quantity comparison value will be below the threshold”).
As to claim 6, Nagata teaches all the limitation of the base claims as outlined above.
Nagata does not explicitly teach a display device that displays the model operation result of the first trial and the actual machine operation result of the first trial.
Tasashi further teaches a display device that displays the model operation result of the first trial and the actual machine operation result of the first trial (claim 4 “a display control unit for displaying on a display device the user's evaluation of the simulation result acquired by the first searching unit”).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cella et al USPGPUB 2021/0287459 teaches method for updating one or more properties of one or more transportation system digital twins includes receiving a request to update the one or more transportation system digital twins; retrieving the one or more transportation system digital twins to fulfill the request from a digital twin datastore; and retrieving one or more dynamic models to fulfill the request from a dynamic model datastore. The method further includes selecting data sources from a set of available data sources for one or more inputs for the one or more dynamic models; retrieving data from the selected data sources; running the one or more dynamic models using the retrieved data as input data to determine one or more output values; and updating the one or more properties of the one or more transportation system digital twins based on the one or more output values of the one or more dynamic models.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights