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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by FLIXEDER et al (US 20220306406 A1).
With respect to claim 1, FLIXEDER discloses planar drive system, comprising: at least one stator assembly (fig. 2, stator 2), each stator assembly having a plurality of coil groups configured for generating a stator magnetic field (fig. 2, coils am), a stator surface above the stator assembly (fig. 3, surface at arrow stator 2), and a rotor (fig. 2, transport unit tn), wherein the rotor comprises a plurality of magnet assemblies for generating a rotor magnetic field (paragraph 41 “drive magnet arrangement 3 in order to generate a force and/or a torque acting on the transport unit Tn. This electromagnetic field can also be generated by another magnetic-field-generating unit, for example moving permanent magnets.”); wherein, in a first operating state, the rotor is movable above the stator surface in parallel with regard to the stator surface with the aid of an interaction of the stator magnetic field with the rotor magnetic field (paragraph 41 “this force can be generated in the direction of movement (in the planar case, two directions of movement are possible in the plane) and then serves as a propulsive force for moving the transport unit Tn”), wherein, in a second operating state, the rotor is at least restricted in terms of its movability in parallel with regard to the stator surface by a safety system (fig. 9 and paragraph 67 “Simultaneously, the area barriers 12 that physically separate the error area F from the rest of the area of movement of the stator 2 are activated. This means that the transport unit Tn in the error state cannot leave the error area F.”), and wherein, in the second operating state, the rotor is also at least restricted in terms of its movability perpendicularly with regard to the stator surface by the safety system (fig. 9, area barriers 12).
With respect to claim 2, FLIXEDER discloses wherein the safety system comprises an active safety device, wherein the active safety device restricts the rotor in its movability (paragraph 67 “ Simultaneously, the area barriers 12 that physically separate the error area F from the rest of the area of movement of the stator 2 are activated. This means that the transport unit Tn in the error state cannot leave the error area F.”).
With respect to claim 3, FLIXEDER discloses wherein the active safety device comprises a first movable barrier between a first region of the stator surface and a second region of the stator surface (fig. 9, barrier 12 left of page), wherein the rotor is no longer movable from the first region to the second region after the first movable barrier is closed (fig. 9, Tn confined to error area F).
With respect to claim 4, FLIXEDER discloses wherein the active safety device comprises a second movable barrier between the first region and an edge of the planar drive system (fig. 9, barrier 12 right of page), wherein the second movable barrier is only openable when the first movable barrier is closed (paragraph 67 “ Simultaneously, the area barriers 12 that physically separate the error area F from the rest of the area of movement of the stator 2 are activated”).
With respect to claim 5, FLIXEDER discloses wherein the second movable barrier is only openable when a current supply to the coil groups of the stator assemblies in the first region is switched off (paragraph 13 “If the error area is isolated from the rest of the area of movement of the stator by area barriers, so that no transport unit can enter or leave the error area, the region of the system error can be easily confined to a very specific part of the stator. The transport units outside the area barriers remain largely unaffected.”).
With respect to claim 6, FLIXEDER discloses wherein the first movable barrier comprises a hold-down device (paragraph 57 “an induction stop (short circuit) can also be implemented, as described for example in EP 3 581 428 A1, by means of which the transport unit Tn can be stopped more quickly.”), wherein when the first movable barrier is closed, the hold-down device fixes the rotor on the stator surface (paragraph 57 “If, due to the system error, the setpoint (e.g., a setpoint position) of the movement of the transport unit Tn can no longer be followed, or can only be followed insufficiently or imprecisely, an actual-value-based controlled movement other than the above-mentioned short circuit, or the de-energization, or the stopping of the movement of the permanent magnets, can be implemented as the error response movement, in particular a movement of the transport unit Tn to a standstill,”).
With respect to claim 7, FLIXEDER discloses wherein the active safety device comprises a controller (fig. 1, transport control unit 10), wherein the controller is configured to evaluate operating parameters relevant for operational safety and to transfer the planar drive system to the second operating state if evaluation of the operating parameters shows that unsafe operation could be present (paragraph 49 “system errors can also be detected by sensors on the transport system 1, for example using temperature sensors, voltage sensors, current sensors, light barriers, etc. It can be assumed that system errors and the location at which a system error occurred are detected on the transport system 1 and are known in the transport control unit 10.”).
With respect to claim 12, FLIXEDER discloses further comprising a controller configured to control the active safety device (paragraph 49 “system errors can also be detected by sensors on the transport system 1, for example using temperature sensors, voltage sensors, current sensors, light barriers, etc. It can be assumed that system errors and the location at which a system error occurred are detected on the transport system 1 and are known in the transport control unit 10.”).
With respect to claim 19, FLIXEDER discloses: a planar drive system controller is arranged to control current supply to the coil groups of the stator assemblies and to detect that the planar drive system is in the second operating state (paragraph 44 “a control unit 5 is provided which controls the drive coils Am or the power electronics 4 accordingly.”); wherein the planar drive system controller is further arranged to carry out current supply to the coil groups of the stator assemblies such that the planar drive system is transferred from the second operating state to the first operating state (paragraph 49 “It can be assumed that system errors and the location at which a system error occurred are detected on the transport system 1 and are known in the transport control unit 10.”).
With respect to claim 20, FLIXEDER discloses A method for operating a planar drive system according to claim 12, wherein the controller is configured to energize the coil groups of the stator assemblies and/or control the active safety device such that the planar drive system is transferred from the second operating state to the first operating state (paragraph 55 “the error response movement can also depend on the system error. However, provision is made for a specific error response movement to be defined for every possible system error, which movement is then implemented by the transport control unit 10. However, a transport unit Tn does not necessarily have to move to a standstill as an error response movement.” and paragraph 57 “principle be controlled setpoint-based, but can continue to be moved at a lower speed than in normal operation. The error response movement would thus be produced by reducing the speed. If a voltage failure occurs in a region of the stator 2, simply coasting the transport unit Tn (idling) without any driving force can be provided as an error response movement.”).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FLIXEDER in view of Denninger et al (US 20140231217 A1).
With respect to claim 8, FLIXEDER teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the active safety device comprises an uninterrupted current supply.”
Denninger teaches the active safety device comprises an uninterrupted current supply (paragraph 36 “It can be self-evident that an uninterrupted power supply may be used to provide sufficient electrical power for powering down safely in the case of an electrical power outage.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the planar motor of FLIXEDER with the uninterrupted current supply of Denninger in order to prevent damages to the planar motor and loads during failure states from at least power interruption.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FLIXEDER in view of Paweletz (US 20160347550 A1).
With respect to claim 9, FLIXEDER teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the active safety device comprises a retaining element, wherein the rotor is guided to the retaining element in the second operating state in such a way that the rotor is restricted in its movability by the retaining element.”
Paweletz teaches the active safety device comprises a retaining element (fig. 6, movable part 42), wherein the rotor is guided to the retaining element in the second operating state in such a way that the rotor is restricted in its movability by the retaining element (paragraph 42 “the movable part 42 is much lighter [is embodied above all from a synthetic material] and above all has essentially less inertia than the base body 31 having associated magnetic field arrays 41. As a consequence, the movement of the movable part 42 is very quick with regard to the base part 31 or the drive part 41 and moves initially in the Z-direction towards the drive surface 13 of the stator. As a consequence, the mover 20 is protected against greater damages and an emergency operational mode is rendered possible by way of example by means of rolling or braking (by means of the friction elements installed in the receiving devices of the balls 45).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the planar motor of FLIXEDER with the retaining element of Paweletz in order to passively guide and retain the load despite the status of error or power in the system.
Claim 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FLIXEDER in view of Lu et al (US 20200030995 A1).
With respect to claim 13, FLIXEDER teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the safety system comprises a passive safety device, wherein the passive safety device restricts the rotor in its movability.”
Lu teaches the safety system comprises a passive safety device, wherein the passive safety device restricts the rotor in its movability (fig. 35a, guidance device 4243).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the planar motor of FLIXEDER with the passive safety system of Lu in order to passively guide and retain the load despite the status of error or power in the system.
With respect to claim 14, FLIXEDER teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the passive safety device is configured to impede energization of the coil groups in the event that a current supply to the coil groups fails and removal of the rotor from the stator surface results. “
Lu teaches the passive safety device is configured to impede energization of the coil groups in the event that a current supply to the coil groups fails and removal of the rotor from the stator surface results (paragraph 344 “s the mover gradually moves in the −X direction into the overlapping region, it comes into contact with the guide rails due to the guide rails' slope. Once the mover is fully supported by the guide rail in the Z direction, feedback control on the mover in Rz and Y may be switched off, and the mover may be driven onto the transfer stage in the negative X direction either using a X-direction driving force with open loop control or using controllable motion in X.” The Examiner is interpreting the fully support in the Z direction as impeding energization and preventing removal from the surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the planar motor of FLIXEDER with the passive safety system of Lu in order to passively guide and retain the load despite the status of error or power in the system.
With respect to claim 15, FLIXEDER teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the passive safety device comprises a fastening.”
Lu teaches the passive safety device comprises a fastening (paragraph 367 “In the illustrated embodiment, the widened opening at the entrance of the guidance device helps the mover enter the overlapping zone. Inside the overlapping region, the mover may be mechanically constrained/supported by the guidance device in the Rz and Y directions, and the work body may mechanically support the mover in the Rx, Ry, and Z directions via suitable sliding or rolling bearings, for example.” The Examiner is interpreting the rollers as requiring a fastener to fix them to the guide rails).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the planar motor of FLIXEDER with the passive safety system of Lu in order to passively guide and retain the load despite the status of error or power in the system.
With respect to claim 16, FLIXEDER teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “”the fastening comprises a first strip arranged on the rotor and a second strip arranged on the stator surface.
Lu teaches the fastening comprises a first strip arranged on the rotor (fig. 36c, lip of mover 4410) and a second strip arranged on the stator surface (fig. 36c, guiding device 4343).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the planar motor of FLIXEDER with the passive safety system of Lu in order to passively guide and retain the load despite the status of error or power in the system.
With respect to claim 17, FLIXEDER teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the passive safety device comprises a double rail arranged above the stator surface.”
Lu teaches the passive safety device comprises a double rail arranged above the stator surface (fig. 35a, guidance device 4243).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the planar motor of FLIXEDER with the passive safety system of Lu in order to passively guide and retain the load despite the status of error or power in the system.
With respect to claim 18, FLIXEDER teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the planar drive system is configured such that in the event that a current supply to the coil groups fails the rotor moves away from the stator surface due to gravity, wherein the rotor is configured to be caught with the aid of the double rail.”
Lu teaches the planar drive system is configured such that in the event that a current supply to the coil groups fails the rotor moves away from the stator surface due to gravity, wherein the rotor is configured to be caught with the aid of the double rail (paragraph 367 “In the illustrated embodiment, the widened opening at the entrance of the guidance device helps the mover enter the overlapping zone. Inside the overlapping region, the mover may be mechanically constrained/supported by the guidance device in the Rz and Y directions, and the work body may mechanically support the mover in the Rx, Ry, and Z directions via suitable sliding or rolling bearings, for example.” The Examiner is interpreting the rollers as requiring a fastener to fix them to the guide rails).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 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.
With respect to claim 10 the limitations “the active safety device comprises a third movable barrier with a double rail” in combination disclosed are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior art. Specifically, the closest available prior art is Lu et al which discloses the use of guide rails (fig. 35a, guidance device 4243) to guide the floating rotor. However, the prior art, as exemplified by Lu fails to teach, alone or obvious combination “the active safety device comprises a third movable barrier with a double rail.”
With respect to claim 11 the limitations “wherein the fluid compartment is fillable with a ferrofluid, wherein the rotor is configured to be restricted with respect to its movability in parallel and perpendicularly with regard to the stator surface when the fluid compartment is filled with the ferrofluid, due to a magnetic interaction of the ferrofluid with the magnet assemblies” in combination disclosed are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior art. Specifically, the closest available prior art is Paweletz et al (US 10312787 B2) which discloses the use of ferromagnetic parts to control the plat form (col. 9, ln 63-66 “The first reluctance element 13 may be made up of a single ferromagnetic material or a combination of ferromagnetic materials. These also include electrical sheets (sheet-metal elements).”). However, the prior art, exemplified by Paweletz in view of FLIXEDER fails to teach, alone or in obvious combination, “wherein the fluid compartment is fillable with a ferrofluid, wherein the rotor is configured to be restricted with respect to its movability in parallel and perpendicularly with regard to the stator surface when the fluid compartment is filled with the ferrofluid, due to a magnetic interaction of the ferrofluid with the magnet assemblies.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RILEY OWEN STOUT whose telephone number is (571)272-0068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30pm EST.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at (571)272-3560. 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.
/R.O.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights