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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/31/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 contains the phrase “wherein the identification part estimates the moment of inertia and viscous friction” at the end of the claim but is already claimed at the top of the claim. This limitation is redundant. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 9 contain the phrase “a difference signal calculation part calculating a difference signal from the acceleration command with time difference” which is indefinite because it is unclear what the time difference is and what is being output from this difference signal.
Claims, 1 and 9 recite the limitation "the motor" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) ) 1-2, 4, 8-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okita et al. (US 2011/0050146) in view of Uematsu (US 2016/0132041).
Regarding claim 1,
Okita discloses (fig. 1):
A motor control device (fig. 1, all elements) that controls a machine (Fig. 1, 2) comprising: an identification part (30) estimating moment of inertia and viscous friction (¶0054, ¶0058),
a difference signal calculation part (20) calculating a difference signal from the acceleration command with time difference (calculates acceleration deceleration time constant from estimated inertia, and acceleration instruction/command ¶0084, ¶0085), and an identification interval judgment part (20) determining a valid interval to operate the identification part based on the difference signal (sampling time, ¶0069-¶0070), operating the identification part in the valid interval (sampling period, ¶0069-¶0070)
wherein the identification part estimates the moment of inertia and the viscous friction (30, ¶0054, ¶0058).
Okita does not disclose:
a speed command generation part generating a speed command by integrating an acceleration command, a difference signal calculation part calculating a difference signal from the acceleration command with time difference,
and driving the motor based on the speed command generated by the speed command generating part,
However, Uematsu teaches (fig. 1):
a speed command generation part (21) generating a speed command (output of 21) by integrating an acceleration command (acceleration command from 13, ¶0059), a difference signal calculation part (also 13) calculating a difference signal from the acceleration command with time difference (calculates acceleration command based on torque difference and time, ¶0067, EQNS 9-12),
and driving the motor based on the speed command generated by the speed command generating part (output of 21, ¶0052),
Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to take the identification system from Okita that identifies a viscous friction and moment of inertia of a motor in order to identify these parameters at a specific interval or sampling period (¶0021) in order to improve accuracy and add the acceleration command generator and integrator from Uematsu that uses the inertia and friction to calculate the acceleration command in order to output a speed command that is compensated for acceleration and deceleration (¶0031) to improve performance. This would improve the reliability and performance of the system.
Regarding claim 2,
Okita discloses (fig. 1):
wherein a second difference signal calculation part (adder after 12) calculating a second difference signal with a time difference for observed value of the torque of the motor (from sine wave instruction, 40, ¶0073) and a time difference for the observed value of the angular velocity of rotation of the motor (speed feedback signal input to 12 and output to adder), and the identification part estimates the moment of inertia and the viscous friction based on the difference signal (from speed feedback and current feedback, ¶0077-¶0078).
Regarding claim 4,
Okita discloses (Fig. 6):
wherein the identification interval judgment part operates the identification part with valid interval where the difference signal of the acceleration command is nonzero ¶0067-¶0070, the values at zero are the initial values).
Regarding claim 8,
Okita discloses the above elements from claim 1.
Okita does not disclose:
further comprising: a position command generating part generating position command by integrating the speed command generated by the speed command generation part and controlling position of the machine to follow the position command
However, Uematsu teaches (Fig. 1):
further comprising: a position command generating part generating position command by integrating the speed command generated by the speed command generation part and controlling position of the machine to follow the position command (¶0059).
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to take the identification system from Okita that identifies a viscous friction and moment of inertia of a motor in order to identify these parameters at a specific interval or sampling period (¶0021) in order to improve accuracy and add the acceleration command generator and integrator from Uematsu that uses the inertia and friction to calculate the acceleration command in order to output a speed command that is compensated for acceleration and deceleration (¶0031) to improve performance. This would improve the reliability and performance of the system.
Regarding claim 9,
Okita discloses (fig. 1):
a difference signal calculation step for calculating the difference signal from the acceleration command with time difference (20, calculates acceleration deceleration time constant from estimated inertia, ¶0084), an identification step for estimating the moment of inertia and viscous friction (30, ¶0054, ¶0058), an identification interval determination step for determining valid interval based on the difference signal and operate the identification step in the valid interval (sampling period, ¶0069-¶0070), and an automatic adjustment step for adjusting the control gain based on the estimated value of the moment of inertia and the viscous friction (Jm is used to calculated Kp and Kv and acceleration/deceleration torque constant, ¶0084).
Okita does not disclose:
An automatic adjustment method for motor control device that controls a machine comprising: a speed command generating step for generating a speed command by integrating the acceleration command, a motor driving step for driving the motor based on the speed command,
However, Uematsu teaches (fig. 1):
An automatic adjustment method for motor control device (fig. 1, 1) that controls a machine (2, 3) comprising: a speed command generating step (21) for generating a speed command by integrating the acceleration command (acceleration command from 13, ¶0059), a motor driving step for driving the motor based on the speed command (fed into 22, ¶0052),
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to take the identification system from Okita that identifies a viscous friction and moment of inertia of a motor in order to identify these parameters at a specific interval or sampling period (¶0021) in order to improve accuracy and add the acceleration command generator and integrator from Uematsu that uses the inertia and friction to calculate the acceleration command in order to output a speed command that is compensated for acceleration and deceleration (¶0031) to improve performance. This would improve the reliability and performance of the system.
Regarding claim 10,
Okita discloses (Fig. 1):
he identification step comprising a second difference signal calculation step (adder after 12) for calculating a second difference signal with a time difference for observed value of the torque of the motor (from sine wave instruction, 40, ¶0073) and the observed value of the angular velocity of rotation of the motor (speed feedback signal input to 12 and output to adder), and, estimating the moment of inertia and viscous friction based on the second difference signal (from speed feedback and current feedback, ¶0077-¶0078).
Regarding claim 14,
Okita discloses the above elements from claim 9.
Okita does not disclose:
the speed command generation step generates a speed command that is obtained by integrating the acceleration command, whose maximum value, the minimum value, and the zero point are connected by a combination of functions of one or more orders, and that does not contain a dominant frequency component that excites the machine.
However, Uematsu teaches (Fig. 1):
the speed command generation step generates a speed command that is obtained by integrating the acceleration command, whose maximum value, the minimum value, and the zero point are connected by a combination of functions of one or more orders, and that does not contain a dominant frequency component that excites the machine (¶0059-¶0064, torque values are subtracted from each other).
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to take the identification system from Okita that identifies a viscous friction and moment of inertia of a motor in order to identify these parameters at a specific interval or sampling period (¶0021) in order to improve accuracy and add the acceleration command generator and integrator from Uematsu that uses the inertia and friction to calculate the acceleration command in order to output a speed command that is compensated for acceleration and deceleration (¶0031) to improve performance. This would improve the reliability and performance of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim3, 5-7, and 11-13 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.
Matsuda (US 2021/0323148) – motor control device
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7244. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/C.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2837 /DAVID LUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights