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 .
Objection to Drawings
The drawings are objected to because steering system details (see relative claim 9) of a vehicle not shown in applicants’ figs.1-3. Calculation units realized by a CPU executing a control program, memory, logic circuit (see spec., page 3, para. [0009], page 5, para. [0017]) not shown and referenced.
Plant P details and nominal plant Pn details not shown and referenced (see fig.2, see spec., page 4, para. [0012], pages 5-6, para’s [0018] thru [0020]) and post compensation disturbance Tlast mentioned (see spec., pages 6-7, par’s [0022] thru [0024]) not shown in figs.1-2, and fig.3 is not clear as to post compensation disturbance Tlast and associated frequency characteristics (see para. [0024]) and corresponding antiresonance characteristics (not shown and referenced in fig.3) of the plant (plant details not shown in fig.2) for proper understanding of the invention.
The estimated differential value dTldᴧ is shown in fig.2, however, the estimated disturbance Tldᴧ is not clear as it is not shown and referenced (including integration of the differential value dTldᴧ, , See spec., page 6, para’s [0020]-[0021]) in applicant’s motor control device figs.1-2 for proper understanding of the invention;
The frequency of the disturbance Tld is calculated is mentioned (see spec, pages9-10, para’s [0037]-[0038]-[0039]), but not shown and referenced how the frequency is calculated? The relation between the frequency of angular velocity ώm (see figs.2-3, spec, para. [0038]) and frequency of disturbance Tld (torque?) not clear as relation between frequency of angular velocity ώm and frequency of disturbance Tld not shown and referenced in fig.3 for proper understanding of the invention and
two-inertial, three-inertial system details, elastic element (see spec., pages 4-5, para’s [0014]-[0015]) not shown and referenced and one set of resonance characteristics and antiresonance characteristics not shown and referenced in relative fig.3 (see spec., pages 4-5, para’s [0014]-[0015], page 12, para. [0046]);
Inertia of the mechanical device 13 is modeled (is mentioned see page 9, para. [0036]) but not shown and referenced as to the said model for proper understanding of the invention.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Objection to Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase (see claims 1-9), “the disturbance that is applied to the mechanical device, after the effects of the disturbance have been compensated for, is a post-compensation disturbance, the parameter is adjusted such that the post-compensation disturbance has frequency characteristics corresponding to antiresonance characteristics of the mechanical device” is not clear as Plant P details and nominal plant Pn details not shown and referenced (see fig.2, see spec., page 4, para. [0012], pages 5-6, para’s [0018] thru [0020]) and post compensation disturbance Tlast mentioned (see spec., pages 6-7, par’s [0022] thru [0024]) not shown in figs.1-2, and fig.3 is not clear as to post compensation disturbance Tlast and associated frequency characteristics (see para. [0024]) and corresponding antiresonance characteristics (not shown and referenced in fig.3) of the plant (plant details not shown in fig.2) for proper understanding of the invention.
The estimated differential value dTldᴧ is shown in fig.2, however, the estimated disturbance Tldᴧ is not clear as it is not shown and referenced (including integration of the differential value dTldᴧ, , See spec., page 6, para’s [0020]-[0021]) in applicant’s motor control device figs.1-2 for proper understanding of the invention;
The frequency of the disturbance Tld is calculated is mentioned (see spec, pages9-10, para’s [0037]-[0038]-[0039]), but not shown and referenced how the frequency is calculated? The relation between the frequency of angular velocity ώm (see figs.2-3, spec, para. [0038]) and frequency of disturbance Tld (torque?) not clear as relation between frequency of angular velocity ώm and frequency of disturbance Tld not shown and referenced in fig.3 for proper understanding of the invention and
two-inertial, three-inertial system details, elastic element (see spec., pages 4-5, para’s [0014]-[0015]) not shown and referenced and one set of resonance characteristics and antiresonance characteristics not shown and referenced in relative fig.3 (see spec., pages 4-5, para’s [0014]-[0015], page 12, para. [0046]);
Inertia of the mechanical device 13 is modeled (is mentioned see page 9, para. [0036]) but not shown and referenced as to the said model for proper understanding of the invention.
As to claim 9, the phrase, “the mechanical device is a steering system of a vehicle; and the motor generates torque that is applied to the steering system” is not clear as
steering system details of a vehicle not shown and referenced in applicants’ figs.1-3.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
Claims 1-9 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.
As to claims 1-9, The phrase, “the disturbance that is applied to the mechanical device, after the effects of the disturbance have been compensated for, is a post-compensation disturbance, the parameter is adjusted such that the post-compensation disturbance has frequency characteristics corresponding to antiresonance characteristics of the mechanical device” is not clear as Plant P details and nominal plant Pn details not shown and referenced (see fig.2, see spec., page 4, para. [0012], pages 5-6, para’s [0018] thru [0020]) and post compensation disturbance Tlast mentioned (see spec., pages 6-7, par’s [0022] thru [0024]) not shown in figs.1-2, and fig.3 is not clear as to post compensation disturbance Tlast and associated frequency characteristics (see para. [0024]) and corresponding antiresonance characteristics (not shown and referenced in fig.3) of the plant (plant details not shown in fig.2) for proper understanding of the invention.
The estimated differential value dTldᴧ is shown in fig.2, however, the estimated disturbance Tldᴧ is not clear as it is not shown and referenced (including integration of the differential value dTldᴧ, , See spec., page 6, para’s [0020]-[0021]) in applicant’s motor control device figs.1-2 for proper understanding of the invention;
The frequency of the disturbance Tld is calculated is mentioned (see spec, pages9-10, para’s [0037]-[0038]-[0039]), but not shown and referenced how the frequency is calculated? The relation between the frequency of angular velocity ώm (see figs.2-3, spec, para. [0038]) and frequency of disturbance Tld (torque?) not clear and not shown and referenced in fig.3 for proper understanding of the invention and
two-inertial, three-inertial system details, elastic element (see spec., pages 4-5, para’s [0014]-[0015]) not shown and referenced and one set of resonance characteristics and antiresonance characteristics not shown and referenced in relative fig.3 (see spec., pages 4-5, para’s [0014]-[0015], page 12, para. [0046]);
Inertia of the mechanical device 13 is modeled (is mentioned see page 9, para. [0036]) but not shown and referenced as to the said model for proper understanding of the invention.
As to claim 9, the phrase, “the mechanical device is a steering system of a vehicle; and the motor generates torque that is applied to the steering system” is not clear as
steering system details of a vehicle not shown and referenced in applicants’ figs.1-3.
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)(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) 1, 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by YOSHIURA et al. (Pub.No.: US 2013/0057191 A1 and YOSHIURA hereinafter).
As to claim 1, (Original) A motor control device, comprising:
a command value calculation unit configured to calculate a command value for controlling a motor of a mechanical device; and
a disturbance observer unit configured to estimate a disturbance applied to the mechanical device, based on the command value and rotation information of the motor, and to correct the command value based on the disturbance that is estimated, wherein
the disturbance observer unit has a parameter that is adjusted to compensate for effects of the disturbance having a specific frequency that is an object of suppression,
the disturbance that is applied to the mechanical device, after the effects of the disturbance have been compensated for, is a post-compensation disturbance,
the parameter is adjusted such that the post-compensation disturbance has frequency characteristics corresponding to antiresonance characteristics of the mechanical device, and
the disturbance observer unit is configured to change a value of the parameter in accordance with the rotation information of the motor.
(As to claim 1, YOSHIURA teaches (1-53, para’s [0003], [0064]) A motor control apparatus 100 (figs.1-10), comprising:
a command value calculation unit [position controller1, speed controller 2] (fig.1) configured to calculate a command value [first torque command] (see para’s [0065]-[0066]) for controlling a motor 200 of a mechanical device 500; and
a disturbance observer unit 31 configured to estimate a disturbance [estimated disturbance torque] (see figs.1-2, para. [0067]) applied to the mechanical device 500 (see fig.1, para’s [0069], [0074]), based on the command value [first torque command/ second torque command] (see figs.1-2) and rotation information [first motor speed] of the motor 200, and to correct the command value [first torque command] (via adjuster 34 adds the correction amount of the estimated disturbance torque to the first torque command, see figs.1-2) based on the disturbance that is estimated (via disturbance observer 31, see figs.1-2, para. [0067), wherein
the disturbance observer unit 31 has a parameter [gain] (via gain multiplier 33 of inhibitor 3, see figs.1-2) that is adjusted to compensate for effects of the disturbance (see para’s [0067], [0074])) having a specific frequency (see fig.6) that is an object of suppression (YOSHIURA teaches via fig.2, para. [0095] “observer unit 31, via control system 51 controls frequency characteristic of resonance inhibition model 43 so as to eliminate or minimize vibration caused by mechanical resonance of the motor 200 and the drive mechanism 500”. See relative para’s [0082] thru [0088] and fig.6, relative para’s [0101] thru [0105]),
the disturbance that is applied to the mechanical device [drive mechanism 500 (300, 400) (via disturbance observer unit 31, see figs.1-2), after the effects of the disturbance have been compensated such as corrected and adjusted (via torque adjuster [34], see figs.1-2, 3, para. [0067], [0074]), is a post-compensation disturbance torque ([second torque] applied to disturbance observer 31 and motor 200, see figs.1-3, para’s [0067], [0068], [0069] & Yoshiura teaches “adjust a torque command to reduce the influence of a disturbance added to motor 200 through the drive mechanism 500, see para. [0074]),
the parameter [gain] is adjusted (via gain multiplier 33, see figs.1-3, para. [0067], [0088], [0108], fig.7; [0110], fig.8) such that the post-compensation disturbance (fig.3 shows corrected torque via adjuster [+, -] (i.e. torque command r - disturbance torque via gain multiplier) is fed back to disturbance observer 31 and motor + drive mechanism) has frequency characteristics [frequency characteristic relation to machine resonance of the drive mechanism 500], see fig.6) corresponding to antiresonance characteristics (see fig.6, para’s [0101]-[0102]) of the mechanical device [drive mechanism 500], and
the disturbance observer unit 31 (figs.1-2) is configured to change a value of the parameter [gain] (see figs.1, 2, 3, 6, para’s [0067], [0088], [0108], [0110]) in accordance with the rotation information [first speed] (fig.1) of the motor.
As to claim 2, (Original) The motor control device according to claim 1, wherein the rotation information of the motor is an angular velocity of the motor.
(As to claim 2, YOSHIURA teaches (1-53, para’s [0003], [0064]) A motor control apparatus 100 (figs.1-10), wherein the rotation information of the motor 200 is an angular velocity [speed] (see fig.1, para. [0071]-[0072], angular frequency, see fig.6) of the motor 200).
As to claim 3, (Original) The motor control device according to claim 2, wherein: the parameter includes a gain; and the disturbance observer unit is configured to calculate a differential value of the disturbance based on the command value and the angular velocity of the motor, and
calculate a first correction value for the command value by multiplying, by the gain, the differential value of the disturbance that is calculated.
(As to claim 3, YOSHIURA teaches (1-53, para’s [0003], [0064]) A motor control apparatus 100 (figs.1-10), wherein: the parameter includes a gain (via gain multiplier 33); and the disturbance observer unit 31 is configured to calculate a differential value of the disturbance (difference torque via subtracter 44, see fig.2, para.[0088]) based on the command value [second torque command value] (see figs.1-2) and the angular velocity [first speed] of the motor 200, and
calculate a first correction value (correction amount inputted to adder 34 via gain multiplier 33, see fig.1) for the command value [first torque command] by multiplying, by the gain (gain multiplier 33, see fig.1), the differential value of the disturbance (difference torque via subtracter 44, see fig.2) that is calculated (via disturbance observer unit 31, see fig.2, para’s [0067], [0088]).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIURA et al. (Pub.No.: US 2013/0057191 A1 in view of ENDO et al. (PUB. No.: US 2021/0006189 A1 and ENDO hereinafter).
As to claim 9, (Previously Amended) The motor control device according to claim 1, wherein: the mechanical device is a steering system of a vehicle; and the motor generates torque that is applied to the steering system.
(As to claim 9, YOSHIURA teaches (see figs.1-53, para’s [0003], [0064]) A motor control apparatus 100 (figs.1-10), wherein: the mechanical device [drive mechanism 500 (300, 400)] driven by torque generated by motor 200 (see figs.1, 5, para’s [0069], [0074]).
YOSHIURA does not mention the mechanical device is a steering system of a vehicle; and the motor generates torque that is applied to the steering system.
ENDO teaches (figs.1-5, para’s [0024]-[0025]) a motor control system 1000, wherein a motor M (motor 543, fig.6) generates torque that is applied to steering system 520 of the mechanical device [EPS 2000] of a vehicle (see FIG.6, para’s [0096], [0098]-[0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the mechanical device is a steering system of a vehicle; and the motor generates torque that is applied to the steering system of ENDO in the system of YOSHIURA because noise is reduced with compensating control processing with disturbance observer (see ENDO, para’s [0007] & [0075]).
Allowable Subject-Matter
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 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.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 4, the prior art of records (closest prior arts, YOSHIURA et al. and ENDO et al.) fails to teach
PNG
media_image1.png
276
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 4.
Claim 5 depend on allowable claim 4.
As to claim 6, the prior art of records (closest prior arts, YOSHIURA et al. and ENDO et al.) fails to teach the motor control device further includes a compensator configured to calculate a compensation amount for compensating for the effects of the disturbance in accordance with a differential value of torque externally applied to the mechanical device, and a multiplier that calculates a second correction value for the command value by multiplying the compensation amount by the gain; and the compensator is configured to change a value of a first coefficient, which is a coefficient of a second-order differential term of a second-order differential equation representing the compensator, and a value of a second coefficient, which is a coefficient of a first-order differential term, in accordance with the rotation information of the motor.
Claim 7 depend on allowable claim 6.
As to claim 8, the prior art of records (closest prior arts, YOSHIURA et al. and ENDO et al.) fails to teach calculate a third correction value for the command value based on the differential value of the disturbance that is calculated and in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 8.
However, formal requirements are outstanding (Objection to drawings and specification and 35 USC 112 rejection) needs to be corrected and clarified.
Citation of pertinent prior art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a) Tadano (Pub.No.: US 2012/0306411 A1) teaches (figs.1-5, abstract, para’s [0001]-[0002] thru [0011]) torque ripple suppression control apparatus and control method for suppressing periodic torque disturbance.
b) Tadano et al. (Pub.No.: US 2019/0229659 A1) teaches (figs.1-19, abstract) motor drive system for suppressing vibrations due to mechanical resonance (para. [0009]).
c) Kimura et al. (Pub.No.: US 2021/0194402 A1) teaches (figs.1-17B, para. [0008]) electric motor control device capable of quickly damping the vibration caused by the resonance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONY M PAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1608. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am to 4 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, Mr. 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.
/ANTONY M PAUL/
Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights