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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
1. A method executed by one or more computers for determining synchronization deviation between a first drive mechanism and a second drive mechanism in an industrial machine including the first drive mechanism and the second drive mechanism that operate together in synchronization, the method comprising:
acquiring first drive data indicative of a dynamic state of the first drive mechanism;
acquiring second drive data indicative of a dynamic state of the second drive mechanism;
extracting differences between the first drive data and the second drive data;
deriving a cumulative sum of the differences;
determining whether the cumulative sum exhibits linearity or non-linearity; and
determining that the synchronization deviation occurs between the first drive mechanism and the second drive mechanism when the cumulative sum exhibits non-linearity.
2. The method according to claim 1, further comprising
performing frequency analysis on difference data indicative of the differences to acquire analysis data indicative of a power spectrum of the difference data;
deriving a Gaussian distribution of the analysis data and acquiring feature amounts representing the Gaussian distribution; and
determining whether the first drive mechanism and the second drive mechanism are abnormal based on the feature amounts.
3. The method according to claim 2, further comprising
determining that the first drive mechanism and the second drive mechanism are abnormal based on the feature amounts, and
determining that deterioration of either of the first drive mechanism and the second drive mechanism is progressing when a determination is made that the cumulative sum exhibits linearity.
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein
the first drive mechanism includes a first motor,
the second drive mechanism includes a second motor,
the first drive data indicates a torque waveform of the first motor, and
the second drive data indicates a torque waveform of the second motor.
5. The control system according to claim 5, wherein
the industrial machine is a workpiece feeding device that feeds a workpiece to be pressed.
6. The method according to claim 5, wherein
the industrial machine further includes
a cross bar extending between the first drive mechanism and the second drive mechanism, the cross bar being configured to hold the workpiece,
the first drive mechanism includes
a first arm connected to one end of the cross bar, and
a first motor configured to cause the first arm to operate, and
the second drive mechanism includes
a second arm connected to the other end of the cross bar, and
a second motor configured to cause the second arm to operate.
7. A system for determining synchronization deviation between a first drive mechanism and a second drive mechanism in an industrial machine including the first drive mechanism and the second drive mechanism that operate together in synchronization, the system comprising:
a storage device configured to store first drive data indicative of a dynamic state of the first drive mechanism and second drive data indicative of a dynamic state of the second drive mechanism; and
one or more computers communicably connected to the storage device, the one or more computers being configured to
extract differences between the first drive data and the second drive data,
derive a cumulative sum of the differences,
determine whether the cumulative sum exhibits linearity or non-linearity, and
determine that the synchronization deviation occurs between the first drive mechanism and the second drive mechanism when the cumulative sum exhibits non-linearity.
8. The system according to claim 7, wherein
the one or more computers is further configured to
perform frequency analysis on difference data indicative of the differences to acquire analysis data indicative of a power spectrum of the difference data,
derive a Gaussian distribution of the analysis data and acquire feature amounts representing the Gaussian distribution, and
determine whether the first drive mechanism and the second drive mechanism are abnormal based on the feature amounts.
9. The system according to claim 8, wherein
the one or more computers is further configured to
determine that the first drive mechanism and the second drive mechanism are abnormal based on the feature amounts, and determine that deterioration of either of the first drive mechanism and the second drive mechanism is progressing when a determination is made that the cumulative sum exhibits linearity.
10. The system according to claim 7, wherein
the first drive mechanism includes a first motor,
the second drive mechanism includes a second motor,
the first drive data indicates a torque waveform of the first motor, and
the second drive data indicates a torque waveform of the second motor.
11. The method according to claim 7, wherein
the industrial machine is a workpiece feeding device that feeds a workpiece to be pressed.
12. The system according to claim 11, wherein
the industrial machine further includes
a cross bar extending between the first drive mechanism and the second drive mechanism, the cross bar being configured to hold the workpiece,
the first drive mechanism includes
a first arm connected to one end of the cross bar, and
a first motor configured to cause the first arm to operate, and
the second drive mechanism includes
a second arm connected to the other end of the cross bar, and
a second motor configured to cause the second arm to operate.
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process or function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a computer and storage device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the computer and storage device language, acquiring, extracting, deriving, and determining, in the context of this claim encompasses a user thinking about or manually making calculations for acquiring, extracting, deriving, and determining. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – computer and storage device. The computer and storage device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of computer and storage device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While JP 2004-261819 to Sudo, supplied by applicant, teaches
1,7. A workpiece conveyance device that conveys a workpiece to be pressed, wherein: the workpiece conveyance device includes a first drive mechanism and a second drive mechanism that operate in synchronization with each other, and further comprises a crossbar that extends between the first drive mechanism and the second drive mechanism and holds the workpiece; the first drive mechanism includes a first arm that is connected to one end of the crossbar, and a first motor that operates the first arm; and the second drive mechanism includes a second arm that is connected to the other end of the crossbar, and a second motor that operates the second arm (paragraphs [0017]-[0032], fig. 1, 2).
And, JP 5-177277 to Anami, supplied by applicant, teaches
1,7. the current values of the respective axes of feeders are compared, and the synchronization deviation between the feeders is detected (paragraph [0014]).
Neither Sudo nor Anami, taken either alone or in obvious combination, disclose all the claimed features of applicant’s instant invention, specifically including:
1,7. A method/system for determining synchronization deviation between a first drive mechanism and a second drive mechanism in an industrial machine including the first drive mechanism and the second drive mechanism that operate together in synchronization, the system comprising:
a storage device configured to store first drive data indicative of a dynamic state of the first drive mechanism and second drive data indicative of a dynamic state of the second drive mechanism; and
one or more computers communicably connected to the storage device, the one or more computers being configured to
extract differences between the first drive data and the second drive data,
derive a cumulative sum of the differences,
determine whether the cumulative sum exhibits linearity or non-linearity, and
determine that the synchronization deviation occurs between the first drive mechanism and the second drive mechanism when the cumulative sum exhibits non-linearity.
It is for these reasons that applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3754. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm, M-F.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/Sean Shechtman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights