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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Anticipated by Sakai et al. (US 20200091851 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sakai discloses:
An actuator that sucks a workpiece to a tip of a shaft (7) to pick up the workpiece [0028], the actuator comprising:
a linear motion motor including a stator and a mover, the shaft being connected to the mover, the mover moving relative to the stator to move the shaft in an axial direction of the shaft [0042],
a brake device (4) that brakes the movement of the shaft in the axial direction [0029 & 0030],
a force sensor that detects a direction of a force acting on the mover in the axial direction of the shaft [0011 & 0054 & 0064 & 0082 & 0085 & 0086], and
an estimator configured to estimate a magnetic pole position of the mover, based on the direction of the force detected by the force sensor, without moving the shaft and the mover when the linear motion motor is energized in a stopped state of the movement of the shaft in the axial direction by the brake device [0011 & 0054 & 0064 & 0085 & 0086].
Regarding Claim 2, Sakai discloses:
the estimator executes first estimation processing and second estimation processing in the stopped state of the movement of the shaft in the axial direction by the brake device, to estimate the magnetic pole position of the mover [0007 & 0011 & 0054 & 0064 & 0065 & 0072 & 0073 & 0074 & 0075 & 0076 & 0077 & 0078 & 0082 & 0085 & 0086 & 0090 & 0091],
the first estimation processing is processing of estimating whether the mover is located at a section from n-n rad to n rad or a section from n rad to n+nrad, based on the direction of the force detected by the force sensor when the linear motion motor is energized such that a position of n rad in a range of a magnetic pole position between 0 and 2n rad is a first target position of the mover [0007 & 0011 & 0054 & 0064 & 0065 & 0072 & 0073 & 0074 & 0075 & 0076 & 0077 & 0078 & 0082 & 0085 & 0086 & 0090 & 0091], and
the second estimation processing is processing of estimating whether the mover is located at a section above a center in a section in which the mover is estimated to be located or a section below the center in the estimated section, based on the direction of the force detected by the force sensor when the linear motion motor is energized such that a position of the center in the estimated section is a second target position of the mover, after the execution of the first estimation processing [0007 & 008 & 0011 & 0054 & 0064 & 0065 & 0072 & 0073 & 0074 & 0075 & 0076 & 0077 & 0078 & 0082 & 0085 & 0086 & 0090 & 0091].
Regarding Claim 3, Sakai discloses:
the estimator estimates the magnetic pole position of the mover by repeatedly executing the second estimation processing a predetermined number of times while updating the second target position [0007 & 008 & 0011 & 0054 & 0064 & 0065 & 0070 & 0072 & 0073 & 0074 & 0075 & 0076 & 0077 & 0078 & 0080 & 0082 & 0084 & 0085 & 0086 & 0090 & 0091].
Regarding Claim 5, Sakai discloses:
A position estimation method of estimating a magnetic pole position of a mover in an actuator that sucks a workpiece to a tip of a shaft (7) to pick up the workpiece [0082], the actuator comprising:
a linear motion motor (2) including a stator and the mover, the shaft being connected to the mover, the mover moving relative to the stator to move the shaft in an axial direction of the shaft [0042],
a brake device (4) that brakes the movement of the shaft in the axial direction [0029 & 0030], and
a force sensor that detects a direction of a force acting on the mover in the axial direction of the shaft [0011 & 0054 & 0064 & 0082 & 0085 & 0086],
the position estimation method comprising:
estimating the magnetic pole position of the mover, based on the direction of the force detected by the force sensor, without moving the shaft and the mover when the linear motion motor is energized in a stopped state of the movement of the shaft in the axial direction by the brake device [0011 & 0054 & 0064 & 0085 & 0086].
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 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 of this title, 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (US 20200091851 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, @@@ does not teach:
the force sensor includes a stain gauge,
the strain gauge is provided on a connecting member connecting the mover of the linear motion motor and the shaft, to detect strain of the connecting member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a strain gauge on a connecting member connecting the mover of the linear motion motor and the shaft, to detect strain of the connecting member in order to provide an accurate means of measuring the force imparted by the mover of the linear motion motor to the shaft thereby providing accurate readings to the estimator since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that force sensors comprising material with a known modulus of elasticity and a strain gauge for measuring the deformation of the material for measuring forces between a driver and a driven object were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/07/03 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1, especially as it relates to the limitation of “an estimator configured to estimate a magnetic pole position of the mover, based on the direction of the force detected by the force sensor, without moving the shaft and the mover when the linear motion motor is energized in a stopped state of the movement of the shaft in the axial direction by the brake device”:
applicant’s assertion that the brake device of Sakai does not completely halt motion of the shaft and mover is not persuasive as Sakai discloses “The brake device 4 decreases the movement speed of the rod 7 in the axial direction and also stops the movement of the rod 7 in the axial direction. The brake device 4 of the present embodiment is attached to the rotating device 3. In the present embodiment, the axial direction of the rod 7 coincides with the direction of gravity. FIG. 2 is a perspective view showing the brake device 4 according to the present embodiment. FIG. 3 is a sectional view taken along line A-A shown in FIG. 2. FIG. 4 is a perspective view showing a brake slider 32 in the present embodiment.” [0029] furthermore the limitation states that the estimator “estimates a magnetic pole position of the mover, based on the direction of the force detected by the force sensor, without moving the shaft and the mover” which the estimator is capable of doing, but which is also possible based on the direction of operation of the shaft at the time of estimation based on the applicants interpretation of the prior art and regardless of the Applicant’s interpretation based on the disclosure in the prior art.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 5, especially as it relates to the limitation of “an estimator configured to estimate a magnetic pole position of the mover, based on the direction of the force detected by the force sensor, without moving the shaft and the mover when the linear motion motor is energized in a stopped state of the movement of the shaft in the axial direction by the brake device”:
applicant’s assertion that the brake device of Sakai does not completely halt motion of the shaft and mover is not persuasive as Sakai discloses “The brake device 4 decreases the movement speed of the rod 7 in the axial direction and also stops the movement of the rod 7 in the axial direction. The brake device 4 of the present embodiment is attached to the rotating device 3. In the present embodiment, the axial direction of the rod 7 coincides with the direction of gravity. FIG. 2 is a perspective view showing the brake device 4 according to the present embodiment. FIG. 3 is a sectional view taken along line A-A shown in FIG. 2. FIG. 4 is a perspective view showing a brake slider 32 in the present embodiment.” [0029] furthermore the limitation states that the estimator “estimates a magnetic pole position of the mover, based on the direction of the force detected by the force sensor, without moving the shaft and the mover” which the estimator is capable of doing, but which is also possible based on the direction of operation of the shaft at the time of estimation based on the applicants interpretation of the prior art and regardless of the Applicant’s interpretation based on the disclosure in the prior art.
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN P TIGHE whose telephone number is 571-272-4872. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30 EST
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAUL RODRIGUEZ can be reached on 571-272-7097. 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.
/BRENDAN P TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/GREGORY W ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights