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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 7/25/2024 is being considered by the examiner
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Preliminary Amendment
Applicant's preliminary amendment filed 7/25/2024 has been received and entered into the record. As a result, claims 5 and 9 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-11 are presented for examination.
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:
"a feedback controller that feedback-controls", "a friction compensator that … adds", and "a reverse response reducer that reduces" in claim 1;
"an additional input unit that … adds" in claim 2;
"a feedback controller that feedback-controls", "a friction compensator that … adds", and "a reverse response reducer that reduces" in claim 10.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. [US Pub. 2015/0145464] ("Fujimoto") in view of Lee et al. [US Pub. 2021/0373533] ("Lee").
Regarding claim 1, Fujimoto teaches a machine tool ("machine tool [par. 0055]") comprising:
a feed driver that moves a moving body in the machine tool ("A feed apparatus 20 is provided in a machine tool, for example, and, as shown in FIG. 1, it has a guide unit 30 and a drive unit 40, which are disposed on a base 21 [par. 0055]");
a feedback controller that feedback-controls said feed driver ("the control unit 3 performs feedback control on the drive motor 43 in order to correct deviation between the command movement position and the present position [par. 0059]") in accordance with a state variable ("a control unit generating, based on given target movement position and moving velocity, a command movement position at time intervals corresponding to the moving velocity and generating a control signal in accordance with the generated command movement position to control the drive motor [par. 0027]");
a friction compensator ("friction compensation unit 4 [par. 0060]") that, to compensate for rolling friction that occurs in said feed driver ("rolling guide mechanism [par. 0004]" and "compensate for at least a positioning error caused by friction in the guide unit [par. 0028]"), adds, in advance, one of
a friction compensation value obtained from measurement data of rolling friction and
a friction compensation value ("the friction compensation unit 4 sets the friction compensation value to a maximum friction compensation value F0 or a minimum friction compensation value -F0 for a section where the movable body 22 moves at a constant velocity [par. 0061]")
to a command value to be input to said feed driver ("generates a friction compensation signal, and adds the generated friction compensation signal to the current control signal output from the control unit 3 [par. 0060]" and); and
a reverse response reducer that reduces, using the state variable of said feedback controller ("The friction compensation unit 4 receives the commands relating to the target movement position output from the program analysis unit 2 and a signal relating to the command movement position output from the control unit 3, calculates a friction compensation value corresponding to the position of the movable body 22 [par. 0060]"), a reverse response that occurs due to addition of the friction compensation value ("the friction compensation value is calculated in accordance with the non-linear S-shaped curve of the above function f(x) while the movable body 22 is further decelerated and stopped and then is accelerated in the opposite direction [par. 0065];" and see [figs. 3 and 5] where f(x) is reduced from its maximum value F0 that was added due to friction compensation as the movement initiates a reverse movement).
Although Fujimoto teaches the friction compensation value for rolling friction (as presented above), Fujimoto does not explicitly teach where the friction compensation value is calculated using a rolling friction model.
In an analogous art (friction compensation), Lee teaches where a friction compensation value is calculated using a friction model ("c) performing a calculation, based on the multiple records of friction data and the multiple angle-position signals respectively corresponding to each of the records of friction data, for creating a friction model with respect to the motor [par. 0010]" and "d) importing a current record of the angle-position signal of the motor to the friction model for predicting a predicted friction of the feed system [par. 0011]" and "e) calculating a corresponding compensation current based on the predicted friction [par. 0012]").
Lee further teaches, "analyze the motor of the feed system, for predicting the power the motor may need as dealing with the friction at each rotating position and compensating such power for the motor. Therefore, the manufacturing quality and accuracy of the feed system can be effectively increased [par. 0005]."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified Fujimoto's teachings of a friction compensation value, with Lee's teachings of determining a friction compensation value based on a model, allowing friction to be compensated at each rotating position of motor, improving quality and accuracy of the feed system.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the combination above teaches claim 1. Claims 10 and 11 recite limitations having the same scope as those pertaining to claim 1; therefore, claims 10 and 11 are rejected along the same grounds as claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Takayuki [JP 2019221032A] teaches where the output of an integral element is output in a direction opposite to a friction force when a rotation direction is switched and the integration element is reset to zero.
Kishimoto [US Pub. 2019/0260322] teaches suppressing quadrant projection by compensating for friction torque at timings of quadrant switches.
Popp et al. [US Pub. 2024/0176323] teaches a mechanism to compensate for friction effects occulting at reversal points.
Zhi et al. [US Pub. 2019/0317472] teaches estimating coefficients of a friction model used when position control is performed.
While the prior art of record teaches various methods to mitigate quadrant glitch/reverse response by using friction compensation, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, alone or in combination, to reduce the reverse response that occurs due to addition of the friction compensation value by adding an additional input value equivalent to reset of the state variable of said feedback controller to the command value as presented in claim 2 and to reduce the reverse response that occurs due to addition of the friction compensation value by performing initial value compensation of resetting the state variable of said feedback controller as presented in claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT W CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1214. The examiner can normally be reached (M-F) 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 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 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.
/VINCENT WEN-LIANG CHANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights