DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-15 are cancelled. Claims 16-29 are pending and addressed below.
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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 24 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.
Regarding claim 24, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
All dependent claims of this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 16-18, 22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton et al. (Kira L. Barton and Andrew G. Alleyne, A Cross-Coupled Iterative Learning Control Design for Precision Motion Control, 2008, IEEE, pages 1218-1231; a reference in IDS 10/30/202) in view of Tan et al. (Kok Kiong Tan, Xiaocong Lee, Si-Lu Chen, Chek Sing Teo, and Tong Heng Lee, Disturbance Compensation by Reference Profile Alteration With Application to Tray Indexing, 2019, pages 9406-9416; a reference in IDS 10/30/2024).
Regarding claim 16, Barton et al. teaches:
A method comprising:
providing a model of a mechatronic system, the model comprising a disturbance compensation parameter;
modifying the disturbance compensation parameter by:
obtaining a servo-error of the mechatronic system,
(at least Section I-III discussed robot/machine, controlling with open loop, disturbances and error; in particular fig. 8)
obtaining a setpoint of the mechatronic system,
(at least Section I-III discussed robot/machine, controlling with open loop, disturbances and error; in particular fig. 8; fig. 1);
and
wherein the disturbance compensation parameter is based on a correlation between the servo-error and the predicted servo-error ;
(at least Section I-III discussed robot/machine, controlling with open loop, disturbances and error; in particular fig. 8, equations 13-14)
updating a feedforward transfer function of a feedforward structure of the mechatronic system based on the modified disturbance compensation parameter;
(at least Section I-III discussed robot/machine, controlling with open loop, disturbances and error; in particular fig. 8, Section III B)
and
continuously determining a control signal to control the mechatronic system using the updated feedforward transfer function;
(at least Section I-III discussed robot/machine, controlling with open loop, disturbances and error; in particular fig. 8, Section III B)
Barton et al. does not explicitly teach:
determining, based on the setpoint and the model of the mechatronic system comprising the disturbance compensation parameter, a predicted servo-error of the mechatronic system;
Tan et al. teaches:
determining, based on the setpoint and the model of the mechatronic system comprising the disturbance compensation parameter, a predicted servo-error of the mechatronic system;
(at least Section I-III discussed motion control system, disturbance compensation, error, in particular III) for disturbance compensation (Sections I-III)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of Barton et al. with determining, based on the setpoint and the model of the mechatronic system comprising the disturbance compensation parameter, a predicted servo-error of the mechatronic system as taught by Tan et al. for disturbance compensation.
Regarding claim 17, Barton et al. teaches:
the providing and the modifying are repeated to repetitively update the feedforward transfer function; and
the continuously determining the mechatronic system is controlled using the repetitively updated feedforward transfer function
(at least Section I-III discussed robot/machine, controlling with open loop, disturbances and error; in particular fig. 8, Section III B)
Regarding claim 18, Barton et al. teaches:
Updating the model based on the modified disturbance compensation parameter;
(at least Section I-III discussed robot/machine, controlling with open loop, disturbances and error; in particular fig. 8, Section III B)
Regarding claim 22, Barton et al. teaches:
the control signal is a feedforward signal generated by the feedforward structure and representing a feedforward force of the mechatronic system; and
the disturbance compensation parameter is comprised in the feedforward transfer function of the feedforward structure;
(at least Section I-III discussed robot/machine, controlling with open loop, disturbances and error; in particular fig. 8, Section III B)
Regarding claim 24, as best understood, Barton et al. teaches:
Wherein the mechatronic system comprises an actuator, such as an electromagnetic actuator;
(at least Section I-III discussed robot/machine, controlling with open loop, disturbances and error; in particular fig. 8, Section III B)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-21, 23, 25-29 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. SIMONS et al. (US 20120019801) discussed disturbance force, compensate error.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO LONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
BAO LONG T. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3656
/BAO LONG T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights