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 .
Allowable Subject Matter Discussion
But for the 35 USC 112a written description rejections, claims 24-25 and 28-31 are allowable. Takei et al. teaches a system for controlling a free-piston mover (ABSTRACT, summary of invention), the system comprising:
a Current Controller (Figure 3-“driver”)
an In-Stroke controller (Figure 3-“PID e.g. see “P” or “I as in-stroke control. In the alternative mapping, see Figure 3-92 e.g. the claim does not further define the functionality of the in-stroke controller, it’s placement relative to the future-stroke controller, or the structural components and/or parameters implemented)
a Future-Stroke controller (Figure 3-“PID” e.g. see “D” as a predictor of stroke)
the Current Controller (Figure 1- driver) including at least one Gate Controller (e.g as interpreted, circuitry for implementing clutch actuator control, Figure 3-1 -> see flow rate control valve w. controller coupled to driver) to control at least one circuit switching element (Figure 3-110 e.g. see clutch actuator coupled to gate controller/1) comprising at least one of: an Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor (IGBT), a Field Effect Transistor (FET), a Triode for Alternating Current (TRIAC), a Solid State Relay (SSR), or another type of electrical power relay (e.g. Figure 3-110 e.g. “another type” is interpreted as a control switching means including at least an actuator for turning on or off a stroke)
However, Takei does not teach wherein the Current Controller, the In-Stroke controller and the Future-Stroke controller are further adapted to: sample a second Base Variable indicative of a second Free Piston Mover performance; generate at least one second Target Control Variable using the measured second Base Variable with reference to a second Target Control Variable Function; determine at least one second Control Variable Error using the measured second Base Variable and the second Target Control Variable; generate a Current Demand output which is input to a second Current Controller using the second Control Variable Error; and modify the second Target Control Variable Function for a future stroke of the Free Piston Mover using the Future-Stroke Controller which may affect the next stroke or any future stroke OR
the In-Stroke controller and the Future-Stroke controller are further adapted to: measure a free piston mover (FPM) Synchronisation Error reflecting a difference between a measured Control Variable or measured Base Variable of the second mover and the equivalent measured Control Variable or measured Base Variable of a first mover when a measured variable of either or both mover has become equal to a predefined Stroke Transition Threshold value; provide a Demand Input; wherein the Future-Stroke Controller modifies the Control Parameter Set for a subsequent stroke for at least one of the Free Piston Movers based on at least one of: the measured current, the Current Demand, the FPM Synchronisation Error, the Demand Input.
Claim Objections
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 36 depends upon cancelled claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-25, 28-30, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 21, Applicant’s specification does not describe wherein the Current Controller, the In-Stroke controller and the Future-Stroke controller are adapted to: generate a Control Parameter Set for closed loop control of a Target Control Variable, the Control Parameter Set comprising constituents including a Target Control Variable Function together with one or more of:a Stroke Threshold Function;a Feed Forward Current Function;a Feedback Terms Function; or Control Parameter Set Transition Conditions; transmit the Control Parameter Set to the In-Stroke Controller in advance of the start of a Stroke to be controlled
As per claim 24, Applicant’s specification teaches, published para. 0169-0174:
The method may further comprise the steps of:
sampling a Base Variable indicative of Free Piston Mover performance during a Stroke following the generation of the Control Parameter Set;
generating at least one Target Control Variable using the measured Base Variable with reference to a Target Control Variable Function; and
determining at least one Control Variable Error using the measured Control Variable and the Target Control Variable.
The method may further comprise the step of generating a Current Demand output which is input to a Current Controller using the Control Variable Error.
The method may further comprise the steps of:
sampling a second Base Variable indicative of a second Free Piston Mover performance;
However, the specification does not appear to describe each of the current controller, the in-stroke controller, and the future stroke controller being adapted to implement the following combination of limitations:
As per claim 22, the same issue arises with each of the controllers being adapted to perform the following:
The system according to claim 21, wherein the Current Controller, the In-Stroke controller and the Future-Stroke controller are further adapted to: sample a Base Variable indicative of free piston mover performance during a stroke following the generation of the Control Parameter Set; generate at least one Target Control Variable using the measured Base Variable with reference to a Target Control Variable Function; and determine at least one Control Variable Error using the measured Base Variable and the Target Control Variable.
Claims that directly or indirectly depend on a rejected base claim inherit the written description issue.
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) 16, 19, 21-26, 28-30, and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takei et al. (PG/PUB 20110168011).
Claim 16. Takei et al. teaches a system for controlling a free-piston mover (ABSTRACT, summary of invention), the system comprising:
a Current Controller (Figure 3-“driver”)
an In-Stroke controller (Figure 3-“PID e.g. see “P” or “I as in-stroke control. In the alternative mapping, see Figure 3-92 e.g. the claim does not further define the functionality of the in-stroke controller, it’s placement relative to the future-stroke controller, or the structural components and/or parameters implemented)
a Future-Stroke controller (Figure 3-“PID” e.g. see “D” as a predictor of stroke)
the Current Controller (Figure 1- driver) including at least one Gate Controller (e.g as interpreted, circuitry for implementing clutch actuator control, Figure 3-1 -> see flow rate control valve w. controller coupled to driver) to control at least one circuit switching element (Figure 3-110 e.g. see clutch actuator coupled to gate controller/1) comprising at least one of: an Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor (IGBT), a Field Effect Transistor (FET), a Triode for Alternating Current (TRIAC), a Solid State Relay (SSR), or another type of electrical power relay (e.g. Figure 3-110 e.g. “another type” is interpreted as a control switching means including at least an actuator for turning on or off a stroke)
Claim 19.
A system according to claim 18, wherein the Gate Controller additionally comprises one or more Sensor Controllers or Sensors (0009, 0020 e.g. see controller of flow rate control valve as the sensor controller e.g. “ The flow rate control valve control device of the invention controls the stroke of the actuator by feedback control, and is provided with the learning device for learning the neutral position, and learns, at all times, the operation amount of the flow rate control valve (e.g., amount of electric current flowing into the coil of an electromagnetic solenoid) so as to assume the neutral position,” see feedback control as reading on sensor controller)
Claim 21. The system according to claim 16, wherein the Current Controller (e.g. see output current) , the In-Stroke controller and the Future-Stroke controller are adapted to: generate a Control Parameter Set for closed loop control of a Target Control Variable (e.g. see the cooperative use of the driver, PID, and target setting means as providing target control values for stroke control), the Control Parameter Set comprising constituents including a Target Control Variable Function (e.g. target stroke) together with one or more of:
a Stroke Threshold Function (e.g. target stroke); a Feed Forward Current Function (“PID’” current control); a Feedback Terms Function (“PID” feedback control); or Control Parameter Set Transition Conditions, Figure 3
transmit the Control Parameter Set to the In-Stroke Controller in advance of the start of a Stroke to be controlled (“PID” receiving target stroke settings)
modify one or more of the constituents of the Control Parameter Set for any Future Stroke of the Free Piston Mover using the Future-Stroke Controller (e.g. see current modification and feedback control via PID as parameter adjustment)
transmit the modified Control Parameter Set to the In-Stroke Controller for control of any Future Stroke (“PID” control, see also feedforward control, 0026)
Claim 22. The system according to claim 21, wherein the Current Controller, the In-Stroke controller and the Future-Stroke controller are further adapted to: sample a Base Variable indicative of free piston mover performance during a stroke following the generation of the Control Parameter Set (Figure 3 e.g. see measured stroke as feedback, see also learning control based on piston stroke status); generate at least one Target Control Variable using the measured Base Variable with reference to a Target Control Variable Function (Figure 3 e.g. see target stroke command based on feedback and feedforward control); and determine at least one Control Variable Error using the measured Base Variable and the Target Control Variable (Figure 3 e.g. summed error feedback based on target and sensed stroke values)
Claim 23. (New) The system according to claim 22, wherein the Current Controller, the In-Stroke controller and the Future-Stroke controller are further adapted to: generate a Current Demand output which is input to the Current Controller using the Control Variable (Figure 3 e.g. as interpreted, and but for the 35 USC 112 rejection, each is configured to generate a control variable)
Claim 24. (New) The system according to claim 23, wherein the Current Controller, the In-Stroke controller and the Future-Stroke controller are further adapted to: sample a second Base Variable indicative of a second Free Piston Mover performance; generate at least one second Target Control Variable using the measured second Base Variable with reference to a second Target Control Variable Function; determine at least one second Control Variable Error using the measured second Base Variable and the second Target Control Variable; generate a Current Demand output which is input to a second Current Controller using the second Control Variable Error; and modify the second Target Control Variable Function for a future stroke of the Free Piston Mover using the Future-Stroke Controller which may affect the next stroke or any future stroke (Figure 3)
Claim 25. The system according to claim 24, wherein the Current Controller, the In-Stroke controller and the Future-Stroke controller are further adapted to: measure a free piston mover (FPM) Synchronisation Error reflecting a difference between a measured Control Variable or measured Base Variable of the second mover and the equivalent measured Control Variable or measured Base Variable of a first mover when a measured variable of either or both mover has become equal to a predefined Stroke Transition Threshold value; provide a Demand Input; wherein the Future-Stroke Controller modifies the Control Parameter Set for a subsequent stroke for at least one of the Free Piston Movers based on at least one of: the measured current, the Current Demand, the FPM Synchronisation Error, the Demand Input (Figure 3)
Claim 26.
The system according to claim 21, wherein the Target Control Variable Function is an array of Base Variable and Target Control Variable values from which a Target Control Variable can be looked up by reference to an array element corresponding to a measured Base Variable (“can be” represents an intended use and not accorded patentable weight, see Figure 3 as representing target control variable as a function of setting and feedback as well as learning values for control)
Claim 28.
The system according to claim 22, wherein the Target Control Variable Function is either a mathematical formula from which the Target Control Variable can be calculated by applying the measured Base Variable or a simulation model from which the Target Control Variable can be determined by inputting the measured Base Variable (e.g. the limitation “can be” is an intended use and not accorded patentable weight, see Figure 3 for stroke setting amount based in part on measured stroke base values and target response)
Claim 29.
A system according to claim 24, wherein the second Target Control Variable Function is one of an array of Base Variable and Target Control Variable values from which a second Target Control Variable can be looked up by reference to the array element corresponding to a measured second Base Variable, a mathematical formula from which the second Target Control Variable can be calculated by applying the measured second Base Variable, or a simulation model from which the second Target Control Variable can be determined by inputting the measured second Base Variable (e.g. the limitation “can be” is an intended use and not accorded patentable weight, see Figure 3)
Claim 30.
The system according to claim 23, wherein the Future-Stroke Controller receives input from a Synchronisation Controller for first and second Free Piston Movers (Figure 3 e.g. see element 92 as synchronization controller)
Claim 32.
The system according to claim 21, further comprising the step of recording a measurable output of one or more of the free piston mover, In-Stroke Controller and Future-Stroke Controller (e.g. see feedback control based on measured stroke values, Figure 3)
Claim 33.
The system according to claim 21, wherein the Control Parameter Set includes the Feed Forward Current Function and the Feed Forward Current Function comprises Feed Forward Current Demand values for a range of Base Variable values or for a range of Control Variable values (e.g. see stroke levels based on current amounts, Figure 3)
Claim 34.
The system according to claim 33, wherein the Future-Stroke Controller adjusts the Feed Forward Current Function for a future stroke by adding a proportion of the Feedback Current Demand value corresponding to one or more measured Base Variable values to the Feed Forward Current Demand values associated with each measured Base Variable value by the Feed Forward Current Function (Figure 3 e.g. see combined feedforward with feedback control)
Claim 35.
The system according to claim 23, wherein the Current Demand is calculated for the measured Base Variable by addition of at least one Feedback Current Demand value and one Feed Forward Current Demand value (Figure 3 e.g. see PID control)
Claim 36.
The system according to claim 1, further comprising a programmable microcomputer and computer program code stored on a computer readable medium connected to the programmable microcomputer, wherein upon execution of the computer program code, the programmable microcomputer is configured to:
generate a Control Parameter Set for closed loop control of a Target Control Variable, the Control Parameter Set comprising constituents including a Target Control Variable Function together with one or more of: a Stroke Threshold Function;a Feed Forward Current Function;a Feedback Terms Function (Figure 3)
Control Parameter Set Transition Conditions; transmit the Control Parameter Set to the In-Stroke Controller in advance of the start of a Stroke to be controlled (Figure 3)
modify one or more of the constituents of the Control Parameter Set for any Future Stroke of the Free Piston Mover using the Future-Stroke Controller (Figure 3)
transmit the modified Control Parameter Set to the In-Stroke Controller for control of any Future Stroke (Figure 3)
Claim 36 is rejected under the same mapping as claim 16.
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) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takei et al. in view over Hochberg (PG/PUB 20020065870)
Claim 17. Takei teaches system according to claim 16 but does not teach the computation flow rate described below. Hochberg teaches the computation flow rate described below
wherein the computational loop rate within the In-Stroke Controller is at least two times the a computational loop rate within of the Future-Stroke Controller (0021 e.g. “This means that two processors acting in parallel do not perform as fast as a single processor that has twice the computing speed as the parallel processors. Latency is introduced, in part because data constantly needs to be exchanged between the multiple processors”)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Hochberg for implementing faster computation rates relative to other processors to the teachings of Takei for implementing in-stroke and future stroke controllers, would achieve an expected and predictable result of reducing latency via adapting the in-stroke controller to comprise a faster computation rate. Hochberg is pertinent to a problem of computational speeds between coordinated controllers (0008 e.g. “Because the data interchange is so important, issues such as latency have the potential to completely ruin the performance of a distributed memory computer for non-EP problems, since many processors can end up being left idle, waiting for results from other processors because the network is not fast enough to transmit all of the needed data.”)
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takei et al. in view over Cheng (USPN 7930045)
Claim 18. Takei teaches system according to claim 16, wherein the Gate Controller (Figure 3-1) and Current Feedback Controller (Figure 3-“PID,” 0017) are physically separated and linked by a serial communication means (Figure 3-“driver,” see control loop or communication as a physically separate line), but does not teach the limitations described below. Cheng teaches at least the circuit for communication described below including one or more of: single ended switched unidirectional or bidirectional electrical circuit(s); differential switched unidirectional or bidirectional electrical circuit(s); or one or more optical fibres and associated transceivers (Col 4 lines 55-67 e.g. see at least ethernet communication)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Cheng, namely employing single ended directional circuits for communication, to the teachings of Takei, namely communicating between distributed controllers, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods. Cheng is pertinent to a problem of communicating in a process control network, as described, ABSTRACT, summary of invention.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takei et al. in view over Lu (PG/PUB 20020107585)
Claim 27. Takei does to expressly teach the common array described below. Lu teaches the common array described below
the system according to claim 26, wherein Target Control Variable Function values for a present stroke and at least one subsequent stroke are stored in a common array (ABSTRACT, 0014-16 e.g. see memory)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Lu for using a command memory to the teachings Takei for generating control variables would achieve an expected and predictable result of implementing a common memory for sharing control variables for providing coordinated control.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20150377147 describes a piston-based feedback control (ABSTRACT e.g. “An actuator control device detects a displacement of a piston in a first actuator, controls the first actuator by feedback control, measures both of forces generated in first and second actuators, corrects a target position command value for a piston in the second actuator in accordance with an amount of imbalance between the forces, and controls the second actuator in accordance with the difference between the corrected command value and a feedback value of a displacement position of the second piston.”)
8594852 describes controlling actuator motion (ABSRACT e.g. “A device for controlling the motion of a fluid actuator which includes an electrically operated control valve that controls the flow of a pressurized fluid to and from the fluid actuator in response to signals generated by an actuator controller which uses an on-board, user programmable microprocessor where the user can download various control algorithms into the microprocessor for controlling the motion of the actuator based on such parameters as fluid pressure and flow rates and actuator displacement. Various external sensors can be connected to the controller for monitoring and control purposes using various signal interfaces such as an analog to digital converter or an SSI interface. A local communication bus is used to communicate with one or more slave actuators each having their own electrically operated control valve that controls the flow of a pressurized fluid to and from the slave actuator in response to control signals generated by the controller and sent to the slave control valve over the local bus. Sensors are used to measure various operating parameters of the slave actuator and generate signals that are sent to the controller over the local bus. A supervisory computer is used to send a high level command signal to the controller where the controller generates a closed loop control signal to one or more fluid actuators.”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) PST.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights