DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/06/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1 - 6 have been presented for examination. Claims 1, 3 – 4 and 6 are currently amended.
Response to Interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
Applicant has removed the variously recited “unit”, and recites sufficient structure to performed the recited functional language. Therefore, the invocation of 112(f) is withdrawn.
Response to Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
620
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant has amended the claims, in part, to further clarify the use of the generic processor, which amounts to no more than realizing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer.
Applicant argues: “These features eliminate the need to perform a trial operation of the machine tool solely for the purpose of generating the friction model, and has the particularly significant effect of making it possible to easily generate the friction model even without specialized knowledge …
Those having ordinary skill in the subject art would clearly understand that it would not be practical, or even useful, to attempt to perform the newly-added features in the human mind with or without a pen and paper …
It is evident that the subject features recited in both the previous form of claim 1, and especially as amended in this paper, could not practically be performed in the human mind without the associated hardware and the assistance of a special purpose computer programmed to apply the specialized algorithms disclosed in the specification of the present application and recited in the claims.” (emphasis added)
Applicant argues that the usefulness and benefits of the claimed invention, and provides a conclusory argument that it is not practical to perform in the human mind absent the associated hardware and/or a special purpose computer programmed to apply the recited steps. Examiner notes that the usefulness of the claimed invention is analyzed separately under 101 from subject matter eligibility. Examiner further notes that the claimed invention is directed to a combination of a mental process(es) and mathematical concept(s), and that Applicant has not specifically argued any limitations. Therefore, it is unclear which limitation(s) Applicant is arguing cannot be practically performed in the mind.
Applicant argues: “In the Response to Claim Rejections under 35 USC§ 101 section at page 3 of the Office Action the Examiner asserts that "the claimed invention requires no more than a general purpose computer which is programmed using well-known methods, which does not amount to a special purpose computer (emphasis added)."
In response, MPEP § 218l(II)(B) indicates that "when the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, 'the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm ( emphasis added)."
MPEP § 218l(II)(B) further indicates that "the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer", and that "Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or 'in any other manner that provides sufficient structure ( emphasis added)."
The Examiner appears to be asserting that the claims and/or the specification must recite the specific terminology "special purpose computer" that is programmed to apply the specialized algorithms. However, that is clearly not the case in light of the above-quoted directives of MPEP § 2181(II)(B) in the foregoing two paragraphs of these remarks.” (underline emphasis in original) (bold emphases added)
Applicant argues that the abstract idea implemented using no more than “a memory configured to store a program; and a processor configured to execute the program and control the machining simulation device to” amounts to a special purpose computers programmed to perform the recited steps, based on MPEP § 2181(II)(B). Examiner notes that MPEP § 2181(II)(B) discusses Computer-Implemented Means-Plus-Function Limitations in the context of the invocation of 112(f). However, Applicant has explicitly amended to avoid an interpretation of under 112(f) (see Applicant’s arguments, Page 6). Therefore, it is unclear how the cited portions of the MPEP apply to the instant claims.
Applicant argues: “If these rejections are maintained, the Examiner is requested to clarify in the next Office Communication why these above-quoted directives from MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) do not apply in this case …
Further with regard to this issue, the USPTO Memorandum dated August 4, 2025 entitled "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101" included similar directives in this regard indicating, in the second paragraph of page 2, that "[t]his limitation requires specific mathematical calculations by referring to the mathematical calculations by name, i.e., a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm, and therefore recites a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea ( emphasis added)." It is evident that none of the recitations of independent claim 1 of the present application including "acquire", "simulate", "reproduce", "determines", and "calculate" require any specific mathematical calculations by referring to the mathematical calculations by name as indicated the above-quoted USPTO Memorandum dated August 4, 2025” (emphasis in original)
Applicant appears to assert that the cited portions of the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) regarding the recitation of mathematical concepts are not applied in this case. Examiner notes that claim 1 explicitly recites calculating mathematical variables (i.e. “calculates coefficients of the friction model … for the number of data points”). Therefore, the claim explicitly recites performing mathematical calculations. Further, the cited example does not explicitly recite any calculating (coefficients or otherwise), therefore, it is not directly applicable to this case (Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902-03 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
Applicant appears to refer to claim 2 of Example 47 in the USPTO Memorandum dated August 4, 2025 Applicant as discussing that “referring to mathematical calculations by name” amounts to a claim a reciting a judicial exception, as contrasted with the instant claims. Examiner notes that the claim 2 of Example 47 does not recite “calculate” or “calculating”. Therefore, it is not directly applicable to this case.
Applicant argues: “In response, Applicant respectfully submits that those having ordinary skill in the subject art would clearly understand that the amendments to independent claim 1 of the present application, which recite features that eliminate the need to perform a trial operation of the machine tool solely for the purpose of generating the friction model, and has the particularly significant effect of making it possible to easily generate the friction model even without specialized knowledge, would result in reduced computer processing throughput requirements and a reduction in associated computer power requirements, thus advantageously resulting in improvements in the functioning of the computer …
As a result, Applicant has opted to proceed in this paper by more precisely reciting improvements associated with the details of the generation of the friction model including "the processor calculates coefficients of the friction model, based on the determined type of the friction model and torque and velocity data for the number of data points without performing a trial operation by the machine tool," and "the processor uses the generated friction model with the determined type and coefficients, outputs load in response to velocity inputs, and simulates and reproduces friction in a position and behavior of each shaft of the machine tool ... "
Applicant respectfully submits that such details describing the generation of the friction model provide particular improvements and advantages that directly result from these claimed features including the above-discussed improvements in the functioning of the computer of reduced computer processing throughput requirements and a reduction in associated computer power requirements as well as the improvements and advantages discussed in the portions of the specification quoted at pages 14-15 of the response filed on June 20, 2025.
Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the limitations of amended claim 1 are clearly and directly tied to an improvement in the relevant existing technology, and as such, it is respectfully submitted that the alleged judicial exemption recited by the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application ” (emphasis in original)
Examiner notes that the recited computer elements amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (see previous remarks). Further, the implantation of the abstract idea requires no more than general-purpose computer functions. Therefore, any reduction in computer resources/requirements directly result from the abstract idea itself as implemented on said computer.
Applicant argues: “For the reasons discussed in the previous section with regard to integration of any judicial exception into a practical application via its meaningful additional limitations, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 improves the functioning of underlying computer of the machining simulation device of claim 1, and as such, the presently claimed invention, when considered as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception itself, especially in light of the newly-implemented claim amendments in this paper …
Based on the foregoing discussion, claims 1 and 4 are clearly patent eligible at Step 2B of the 2019 101 Guidelines”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive based on the preceding remarks.
Applicant argues: “With regard to the above-discussed feature of "the processor uses the generated friction model with the determined type and coefficients, outputs load in response to velocity inputs, and simulates and reproduces friction in a position and behavior of each shaft of the
machine tool", the Examiner asserted that there is no recitation proposed of how the simulation is effectuated. For example, the Examiner suggested reciting particular software or a particular algorithm in this regard.
However, the Examiner then referred to the first paragraph of page 18 of the specification of the present application which refers to "well-known simulation methods to simulate the position and behavior of each shaft of the machine tool ( emphasis added)." The Examiner asserted that this would obviate any possible integration into a practical application in light of the "well-known" admission in the specification.
Applicant's undersigned representative responded that whether or not a recited feature is well-known and conventional is not at issue with regard to an analysis of whether any recited feature integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two of the USPTO's 2019 101 Guidelines. Once the Examiner was reminded of such, the Examiner agreed that this is the case.”
Examiner notes that the specification explicitly discloses that the problem being overcome is generating a friction model without requiring trail operations for the sole purposes of generating the friction model and/or without requiring specialized knowledge (see the instant application Paragraph 5 “Therefore, there is a demand for a method that allows for easily generating a friction model for a machine tool without requiring trial operations of the machine tool or specialized knowledge.”, and Paragraph 29 “Since the machining simulation device 10 can generate a friction model with at least one data point, a trial operation of the machine tool (not illustrated) solely for the purpose of generating the friction model is not required.”). Therefore, the claimed invention is reasonably directed to the generation of the model without the downstream application of the generated model, especially since said downstream application (i.e. “simulates … with a well-known simulation method” is wholly generic and does not meaningfully limit the application of the abstract idea).
Response to Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection(s) have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues: “As described in the previous section of these remarks with regard to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the specification of the present application describes various advantages of that result from the inventions as recited in the amended claims of the present application”
Examiner notes that usefulness of the claimed invention is analyzed under section 101, and does not by itself transform the claimed invention into reciting novel and/or non-obvious subject matter.
Applicant argues: “However, Applicant respectfully submits that Tsuruta does not disclose, or even suggest, the feature of the claimed invention of "the processor determines a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity," as recited in newly-amended independent claim 1 of the present application. Accordingly, Applicant will define this difference as Difference 1.
Further, Tsuruta calculates constant disturbance torque, Coulomb friction, viscous friction, and static friction torque, respectively. Therefore, unlike the invention according to claim 1 of the present application, Tsuruta does not disclose, or even suggest, calculating "coefficients of the friction model, based on the determined type of the friction model and torque and velocity data for the number of data points without performing a trial operation by the machine tool," as recited in newly-amended independent claim I of the present application. Accordingly, Applicant will define this difference as Difference 2.
Moreover, Tsuruta does not disclose, or even suggest, determining "a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity," as recited in amended independent claim I of the present application. Applicant will define this difference as Difference 3.” (emphasis added)
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, the highlighted claim limitation are taught by Tsuruta in combination with Andersson and/or Brookfield and/or Marchi (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 for the detailed mapping).
Applicant argues: “In other words, Applicant respectfully submits that Andersson does not disclose, or even suggest, the feature of claim I of the present application of "the processor determines a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity". Further, Andersson does not disclose, or even suggest, calculating "coefficients of the friction model, based on the determined type of the friction model and torque and velocity data for the number of data points without performing a trial operation by the machine tool," and determining "a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity," as recited in the amended independent claim 1 of the present application.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, the highlighted claim limitation are taught by Brookfield in combination with Tsuruta and/or Brookfield and/or Marchi (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 for the detailed mapping).
Applicant argues: “In other words, Applicant respectfully submits that Brookfield does not disclose, or even suggest, the feature of claim 1 of the present application of "the processor determines a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity" as recited in amended independent claim 1 of the present application.
Further, Brookfield does not disclose, or even suggest, calculating "coefficients of the friction model, based on the determined type of the friction model and torque and velocity data for the number of data points without performing a trial operation by the machine tool," and determining "a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity," as recited in the amended independent claim 1 of the present application. Therefore, the above-discussed Differences 1-3 also exist between claim 1 of the present invention and Brookfield.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, the highlighted claim limitation are taught by Brookfield in combination with Tsuruta and/or Andersson and/or Marchi (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 for the detailed mapping).
Applicant argues: “In other words, Marchi does not disclose, or even suggest, the feature of amended independent claim 1 of the present application "the processor determines a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity". Further, Marchi does not disclose, or even suggest, calculating "coefficients of the friction model, based on the determined type of the friction model and torque and velocity data for the number of data points without performing a trial operation by the machine tool," and determining "a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity," as recited in amended independent claim 1 of the present application. Therefore, the above-discussed Differences 1-3 also exist between claim 1 of the present invention and Marchi”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, the highlighted claim limitation are taught by Brookfield in combination with Tsuruta and/or Andersson and/or Brookfield (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 for the detailed mapping).
Applicant argues: “Therefore, because the above-discussed Differences 1-3 still exist, Applicant respectfully submits that it would not have been easy for a person having ordinary skill in the subject art to conceive the features of the invention according to amended independent claim 1 of the present application and the advantageous effect derived therefrom based on the disclosures of Tsuruta Andersson, Brookfield, and Marchi, whether taken separately or in the Office Action's applied combination. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been overcome” (emphasis added)
Applicant provides a conclusory argument that it would be too difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relied upon prior art references. Examiner notes that prior art references are not bodily incorporated into their parent reference(s) as part of an obviousness analysis. Further, Applicant has not specifically argued the relied upon teachings, nor their motivation(s) to combine.
Applicant argues: “The foregoing remarks and proposed amendments were presented to the Examiner in connection with the above-discussed interview. After considering the above-discussed amendment approaches as proposed during the interview, together with the foregoing detailed technical remarks, the Examiner agreed that the recitation in the proposed amendments to independent claim 1 of "without performing a trial operation by the machine tool" is not discussed in the currently applied references. However, the Examiner indicated that he would need to conduct further consideration, and possibly a further search, before reaching any conclusions of patentability.”
Examiner notes that comments regarding the absence of explicit disclosure by the prior art reference(s) does not take away from the overall teachings of said reference(s) as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, Tsuruta explicitly teaches using previously obtained reference values for modeling calculating friction coefficients. Further, a reference is not required to use the same terminology as in the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: it recites “the friction model is determined: a type of friction model for the …” which appears to be intended to recite “where the type of friction model comprises” or similar. This is the interpretation for examination purposes. 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.
Claims 1 - 6 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.
With regard to claim 1 (and similarly claim 4), it recites “acquire, from a storage device, data on a torque and velocity when a velocity of a feed shaft of a machine tool is constant, and generate a friction model for a machine tool by using the data on the torque and velocity acquired” and “without performing a trial operation by the machine tool”. These limitations are contradictory since a “trial” reads on acquiring the torque and velocity data. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as without performing a trial operation for the sole purpose of generating the friction model (see the instant application Paragraph 29 “Since the machining simulation device 10 can generate a friction model with at least one data point, a trial operation of the machine tool (not illustrated) solely for the purpose of generating the friction model is not required.”).
With regard to claim 2 – 3 and 5 – 6, they are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected parent claim and without reciting additional limitations to overcome the unclarity.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 1 (and similarly claim 4), it recites “without performing a trial operation by the machine tool”. The limitations recites that no trials of any kind are performed. However, it is clearly disclosed that the only trial operations for the sole purpose of generating the friction model are avoided (see the instant application Paragraph 29 “Since the machining simulation device 10 can generate a friction model with at least one data point, a trial operation of the machine tool (not illustrated) solely for the purpose of generating the friction model is not required.”).
With regard to claim 2 – 3 and 5 – 6, they are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected parent claim and without reciting additional limitations to overcome the unclarity.
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.
Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites a statutory category (i.e. a machine) machining simulation device, comprising: generate a friction model for a machine tool by using the data on the torque and velocity acquired; and determine a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity; and calculate coefficients of the friction model, based on the determined type of the friction model and torque and velocity data for the number of data points; uses the generated friction model with the determined type and coefficients,. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “generate” and “uses” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality. The “determine” covers observations and judgements that can instantly be performed in the mind. The recited limitation in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “calculate” explicitly recites mathematical calculations involving coefficients and data points. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: a memory configured to store a program; and a processor configured to execute the program and control the machining simulation device to; that the determines and calculates and uses is by the processor; acquire, from a storage device, data on a torque and velocity when a velocity of a feed shaft of a machine tool is constant; simulate and reproduce behavior of the machine tool using the friction model; outputs load in response to velocity inputs, and simulates and reproduces friction in a position and behavior of each shaft of the machine tool with a well-known simulation method. The “memory” and “processor” require no more than generic computer components, and therefore, amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “simulate” and “simulates” recites the idea of an outcome (i.e. reproducing a behavior using a model) in combination with generic computer components, and therefore, amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. The “acquire” amounts to insignificant data gathering since is generic with regard to how the recited quantity is gathered requiring no more than generic storage means. The “outputs” amounts to insignificant data outputting since is generic with regard to how the recited quantity is outputted. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “memory” and “processor” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The “simulate” and “simulates” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. The “acquire” and “outputs” amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it covers performance using any desired electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually at least since the “simulates” and “acquires” and “outputs” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 – 3 recite(s) the same statutory category at Step 1 as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): in claim 2 wherein the friction model includes a constant effect in a specific direction; and in claim 3 wherein the processor determines: a type of friction model for viscous friction, in a case where a number of data points is one; a type of friction model for the viscous friction and static friction, in a case where the number of data points is two and velocities of the two data points are in a same direction of movement; a type of friction model for the viscous friction and the constant effect, in a case where the number of data points is two and the velocities of the two data points are in opposite directions of movement; and a type of friction model for the viscous friction, the static friction, and the constant effect, in a case where the number of data points is four. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “friction model include” further limits the parent claim “generate”, and the “model determination unit determines” further limits the parent claim “determine”, and without precluding performance in the mind. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not further recite any limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 4 recites a statutory category (i.e. a process) machining simulation method, comprising: generating a friction model for a machine tool by using the data on the torque and velocity acquired; and determining a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for torque and velocity; calculating coefficients of the friction model, based on the determined type of the friction model and torque and velocity data for the number of data points without performing a trial operation by the machine tool; using the generated friction model with the determined type and the determined coefficients, At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “generating” and “using” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality. The “determining” covers observations and judgements that can instantly be performed in the mind. The recited limitation in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “calculating” explicitly recites mathematical calculations involving coefficients and data points. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: the method causes a computer including a memory configured to store a program and a processor executing the program to function as a machining simulation device; acquiring, from a storage device, data on a torque and velocity when a velocity of a feed shaft of a machine tool is constant; simulating and reproducing behavior of the machine tool using the friction model; outputting load in response to velocity inputs; simulating and reproducing friction in a position and behavior of each shaft of the machine tool with a well-known simulation method. The “causes a computer” requires no more than generic computer components, and therefore, amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “simulating” recites the idea of an outcome (i.e. reproducing a behavior using a model) in combination with generic computer components, and therefore, amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. The “acquiring” amounts to insignificant data gathering since is generic with regard to how the recited quantity is gathered requiring no more than generic storage means. The “outputting” amounts to insignificant data outputting since is generic with regard to how the recited quantity is outputted. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, various “causes a computer” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The “simulating” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. The “acquiring” and “outputting” amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it covers performance using any desired electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually at least since the “simulating” and “acquiring” and “outputting” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 5 – 6 recite(s) the same statutory category at Step 1 as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): in claim 5 wherein the friction model includes a constant effect in a specific direction; and in claim 6 wherein the friction model is determined: a type of friction model for viscous friction, in a case where a number of data points is one; a type of friction model for the viscous friction and static friction, in a case where the number of data points is two and velocities of the two data points are in a same direction of movement; a type of friction model for the viscous friction and the constant effect, in a case where the number of data points is two and the velocities of the two data points are in opposite directions of movement; and a type of friction model for the viscous friction, the static friction, and the constant effect, in a case where the number of data points is four. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “friction model includes” further limits the parent claim “generate”, and the “the friction model is determined” further limits the parent claim “determine”, and without precluding performance in the mind. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not further recite any limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuruta, K. (JP H11-46489A) (henceforth “Tsuruta (489)”) in view of Andersson, S. “Friction and wear simulation of the wheel–rail interface” (henceforth “Andersson (Chapter)”), and further in view of Brookfield et al. “PARAMETER ESTIMATION FOR A NON-DIRECT DRIVE ROBOT ARM” (henceforth “Brookfield”), and further in view of Marchi, J. “MODELING OF DYNAMIC FRICTION, IMPACT BACKLASH AND ELASTIC COMPLIANCE NONLINEARITIES IN MACHINE TOOLS, WITH APPLICATIONS TO ASYMMETRIC VISCOUS AND KINETIC FRICTION IDENTIFICATION” (henceforth “Marchi (Thesis)”). Tsuruta (489) and Andersson (Chapter) and Brookfield and Marchi (Thesis) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of estimating friction coefficients of a friction model, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of simulating a machine operation.
With regard to claim 1, Tsuruta (489) teaches a machining simulation device, comprising: a memory configured to store a program; and a processor configured to execute the program and control the machining simulation device to: (Paragraph 5 a friction simulation is performed and the results are displayed “The above operation is performed by, for example, inputting the speed command, the motor speed, and the torque command using a general-purpose personal computer and displaying an image, and displaying the inertia, the disturbance torque, the Clon friction, and the like”, and )
generate a friction model for a machine tool by using data on a torque and velocity acquired: (Tsuruta Paragraph 4 a friction model is computed based on a plurality of torque and speed command data points (torque and velocity data acquired) “The calculation means for calculating the Coulomb friction Tc from the value obtained by subtracting the constant disturbance torque Td from the equation (2) is as follows”, and Paragraph 1 for a machine tool “The present invention relates to a control device for a robot or a machine tool, and more particularly to a motor control device for identifying a control constant of an inertia or the like.”)
wherein the processor determines the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity; and (Paragraph 4 the friction model is determined based on a plurality of torque and speed command data points “The calculation means for calculating the Coulomb friction Tc from the value obtained by subtracting the constant disturbance torque Td from the equation (2) is as follows: Tc = {α (Tref3-Td)-(Tref4-Td)} / (α-1) -It is characterized by having (2). Further, in the motor control device, the torque command Tref3, Tref4 and the speed Vf in a steady state of a certain speed command Vref and a speed command αVref that is α times the speed command Vref. Dc = (Tref3-Tref4) / (Vfb3-Vfb4) (3) is provided with a calculation means for calculating the viscous friction Dc from b3 and Vfb4 according to equation (3).”)
wherein the processor calculates coefficients of the friction model, based on the determined friction model and torque and velocity data for the number of data points without performing a trial operation by the machine tool, and (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112) (Paragraph 4 various coefficients are computed based solely on the previously acquired reference values (without performing a trial operation by the machine tool) “Tref3 and Tref4 in a steady state of a certain speed command Vref and a speed command αVref which is α times the speed command Vref. The calculation means for calculating the Coulomb friction Tc from the value obtained by subtracting the constant disturbance torque Td from the equation (2) is as follows: Tc = {α (Tref3-Td)-(Tref4-Td)} / (α-1) -It is characterized by having (2). Further, in the motor control device, the torque command Tref3, Tref4 and the speed Vf in a steady state of a certain speed command Vref and a speed command αVref that is α times the speed command Vref. Dc = (Tref3-Tref4) / (Vfb3-Vfb4) (3) is provided with a calculation means for calculating the viscous friction Dc from b3 and Vfb4 according to equation (3).”)
the processor uses the generated friction model with the coefficients, outputs load in response to velocity inputs, and simulates and reproduces friction with a well-known simulation method. (Paragraph 5 a controller simulates speed control (in response to velocity inputs) that includes disturbance torque and friction (uses the generated friction model, outputs load) “Next, a verification example using a simulation will be described. FIG. 3 is a block diagram for explaining the model of the present invention. The speed control is constituted by proportional-integral control, and the controlled object includes rigid inertia + constant disturbance torque + viscous friction + Coulomb friction + static friction.”)
Tsuruta (489) does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the processor determines a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity; and that the processor uses the generated friction model with the determined type.
However, Andersson (Chapter) teaches:
determine a type of the friction model, based on data points for the torque and velocity (Page 102, Bottom and Figure 4.5 different friction models can be desirably used under different conditions “Since the Coulomb friction model is problematic as regards both the analysis and simulation of a system’s behaviour, a combination of the viscous friction model and the Coulomb friction model could be advantageous”
PNG
media_image2.png
261
461
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the computing friction coefficients of a machine tools based on torque vs. speed commands disclosed by Tsuruta (489) with the determining a type of friction model having different numbers of parameters disclosed by Andersson (Chapter). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to select the model that is best suited given the application (Andersson (Chapter) Page 102, Top “Since the equation of motion for dynamic systems is strongly non-linear with a Coulomb friction model, a viscous friction model is often used instead. Such a model is considerably easier to simulate, but the representation of the friction is often poor.”).
Tsuruta (489) in view of Andersson (Chapter) does not appear to explicitly disclose: acquire, from a storage device, data on a torque and velocity; wherein the processor determines a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity.
However, Brookfield teaches:
acquire, from a storage device, data on a torque and velocity (Brookfield Page 99 collected measurements would be stored prior to be used in any further modeling calculations
PNG
media_image3.png
187
336
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
determine a friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity (Brookfield Page 100, Left one or more parameters of a friction model are desirably estimated, where each of the models of Andersson (Chapter) have a different number of total parameters “For practical implementation of parameter estimation position and velocity (if possible) needs to be measured as accurately as possible. … Apart from the set of data containing torque … of data values and length of the link to run. It should also be noted that for estimation with noise free data, the number of samples is not important provided the number of points exceeds the number of parameters to be estimated”, and Page 98, Right fewer parameters are desirably estimated, where two parameters would be estimated from two data value points, three parameters from three data values points, etc. “Parameters of the system. Out of these parameters, one or more can be estimated simultaneously but it should be noted that the fewer parameters estimated, the more accurate the results will be.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the computing friction coefficients of a machine tools based on torque vs. speed commands disclosed by Tsuruta (489) in view of Andersson (Chapter) with the estimating different parameters of a friction model based on number of data points disclosed by Brookfield. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adequately estimate parameters of a friction model given a number of data value points (Brookfield Page 100, Left).
Tsuruta (468) in view of Andersson (Chapter), and further in view of Brookfield does not appear to explicitly disclose: that the data on a torque and velocity are when a velocity of a feed shaft of a machine tool is constant; and that the simulates and reproduces friction with a well-known simulation method is in a position and behavior of each shaft of the machine tool.
However, Marchi (Thesis) teaches:
acquire data on a torque and velocity when a velocity of a feed shaft of a machine tool is constant; simulates a position and behavior of each shaft of the machine tool using the generated friction model received (Marchi (Thesis) Page 91, Bottom the model can comprise a machine tool drive and velocity data can be desirably obtained such as under the constant speed command of Tsuruta (489), which is then simulated “The simplest geometry to consider analytically is a torsioned prismatic rod with constant circular cross-section, a good approximation to most machine tool drive and feed shafts.”)
simulates and reproduces friction in a position and behavior of each shaft of the machine tool with a well-known simulation method (Marchi (Thesis) Page 128, Top time dynamics of the system are simulated (in a position and behavior, with a well-known simulation method) “Simulation code was developed in collaboration with Jeongmin Lee (M.S.) to provide a means for comparing the actual test bed motion with the analytical model structure used in the identification procedures. The simulator integrates the model structure for a given set of parameter values, producing a simulated time response for the displacement and velocity of each of the three subsystems \A", \B", and \C" of the test bed.”, and Page 129, Top a specifically identified friction model is used (reproduces friction) “At relatively high steady velocities, the elements of backlash and stiction are eliminated, and the lumped motor and shaft dynamics can be identified as a second-order system with linear friction (kinetic+viscous)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the computing friction coefficients of a machine tools based on torque vs. speed commands disclosed by Tsuruta (489) in view of Andersson (Chapter), and further in view of Brookfield with the friction model of a machine tool with feed shafts disclosed by Marchi (Thesis). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to model a machine tool operation (Marchi (Thesis) Page 91, Middle “It has already been noted that the fundamental mode of the tool, modeled by a restoring torque with a nonlinear dependency on forcing frequency, is sufficient to characterise most machine tool cutting operations”).
With regard to claim 4, Tsuruta (468) teaches a machining simulation method that causes a computer including a memory configured to store a program and a processor executing the program to function as a machining simulation device, the method comprising: (Paragraph 5 a friction simulation is performed and the results are displayed using a computer “The above operation is performed by, for example, inputting the speed command, the motor speed, and the torque command using a general-purpose personal computer and displaying an image, and displaying the inertia, the constant disturbance torque, the Clon friction, and the like”, and Paragraph 1 for a machine tool “The present invention relates to a control device for a robot or a machine tool, and more particularly to a motor control device for identifying a control constant of an inertia or the like.”)
generating a friction model for a machine tool by using data on a torque and velocity acquired; and wherein the machining simulation method includes: (Paragraph 4 a friction model is computed “The calculation means for calculating the Coulomb friction Tc from the value obtained by subtracting the constant disturbance torque Td from the equation (2) is as follows”, and Paragraph 1)
determining the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity; and (Paragraph 4 the friction model is determined based on a plurality of torque and speed command data points “The calculation means for calculating the Coulomb friction Tc from the value obtained by subtracting the constant disturbance torque Td from the equation (2) is as follows: Tc = {α (Tref3-Td)-(Tref4-Td)} / (α-1) -It is characterized by having (2). Further, in the motor control device, the torque command Tref3, Tref4 and the speed Vf in a steady state of a certain speed command Vref and a speed command αVref that is α times the speed command Vref. Dc = (Tref3-Tref4) / (Vfb3-Vfb4) (3) is provided with a calculation means for calculating the viscous friction Dc from b3 and Vfb4 according to equation (3).”)
calculating coefficients of the friction model, based on the determined friction model and the torque and velocity data for the number of data points without performing a trial operation by the machine tool, and (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112) (Paragraph 4 various coefficients are computed based solely on the previously acquired reference values (without performing a trial operation by the machine tool) “Tref3 and Tref4 in a steady state of a certain speed command Vref and a speed command αVref which is α times the speed command Vref. The calculation means for calculating the Coulomb friction Tc from the value obtained by subtracting the constant disturbance torque Td from the equation (2) is as follows: Tc = {α (Tref3-Td)-(Tref4-Td)} / (α-1) -It is characterized by having (2). Further, in the motor control device, the torque command Tref3, Tref4 and the speed Vf in a steady state of a certain speed command Vref and a speed command αVref that is α times the speed command Vref. Dc = (Tref3-Tref4) / (Vfb3-Vfb4) (3) is provided with a calculation means for calculating the viscous friction Dc from b3 and Vfb4 according to equation (3).”)
using the generated friction model with the determined coefficients, outputting load in response to velocity inputs, and simulating and reproducing friction with a well-known simulation method (Paragraph 5 a controller simulates speed control (in response to velocity inputs) that includes disturbance torque and friction (uses the generated friction model, outputs load) “Next, a verification example using a simulation will be described. FIG. 3 is a block diagram for explaining the model of the present invention. The speed control is constituted by proportional-integral control, and the controlled object includes rigid inertia + constant disturbance torque + viscous friction + Coulomb friction + static friction.”)
Tsuruta (489) does not appear to explicitly disclose: that determining a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity; and that using the generated friction model with the determined type.
However, Andersson (Chapter) teaches:
determining a type of the friction model, based on data points for the torque and velocity (Page 102, Bottom and Figure 4.5 different friction models can be desirably used under different conditions “Since the Coulomb friction model is problematic as regards both the analysis and simulation of a system’s behaviour, a combination of the viscous friction model and the Coulomb friction model could be advantageous”
PNG
media_image2.png
261
461
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the computing friction coefficients of a machine tools based on torque vs. speed commands disclosed by Tsuruta (489) with the determining a type of friction model having different numbers of parameters disclosed by Andersson (Chapter). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to select the model that is best suited given the application (Andersson (Chapter) Page 102, Top “Since the equation of motion for dynamic systems is strongly non-linear with a Coulomb friction model, a viscous friction model is often used instead. Such a model is considerably easier to simulate, but the representation of the friction is often poor.”).
Tsuruta (489) in view of Andersson (Chapter) does not appear to explicitly disclose: acquiring, from a storage device, data on a torque and velocity; that determining a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity.
However, Brookfield teaches:
acquiring, from a storage device, data on a torque and velocity (Brookfield Page 99 collected measurements would be stored prior to be used in any further modeling calculations
PNG
media_image3.png
187
336
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
determining a friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity (Brookfield Page 100, Left one or more parameters of a friction model are desirably estimated, where each of the models of Andersson (Chapter) have a different number of total parameters “For practical implementation of parameter estimation position and velocity (if possible) needs to be measured as accurately as possible. … Apart from the set of data containing torque … of data values and length of the link to run. It should also be noted that for estimation with noise free data, the number of samples is not important provided the number of points exceeds the number of parameters to be estimated”, and Page 98, Right fewer parameters are desirably estimated, where two parameters would be estimated from two data value points, three parameters from three data values points, etc. “Parameters of the system. Out of these parameters, one or more can be estimated simultaneously but it should be noted that the fewer parameters estimated, the more accurate the results will be.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the computing friction coefficients of a machine tools based on torque vs. speed commands disclosed by Tsuruta (489) in view of Andersson (Chapter) with the estimating different parameters of a friction model based on number of data points disclosed by Brookfield. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adequately estimate parameters of a friction model given a number of data value points (Brookfield Page 100, Left).
Tsuruta (468) in view of Andersson (Chapter), and further in view of Brookfield does not appear to explicitly disclose: that the data on a torque and velocity are when a velocity of a feed shaft of a machine tool is constant; that simulating and reproducing friction with a well-known simulation method is in a position and behavior of each shaft of the machine tool.
However, Marchi (Thesis) teaches:
acquiring data on a torque and velocity when a velocity of a feed shaft of a machine tool is constant; simulates a position and behavior of each shaft of the machine tool using the generated friction model received (Marchi (Thesis) Page 91 the model can comprise a machine tool drive and velocity data can be desirably obtained such as under the constant speed command of Tsuruta (489), which is then simulated “The simplest geometry to consider analytically is a torsioned prismatic rod with constant circular cross-section, a good approximation to most machine tool drive and feed shafts.”)
simulating and reproducing friction in a position and behavior of each shaft of the machine tool with a well-known simulation method (Marchi (Thesis) Page 128, Top time dynamics of the system are simulated (in a position and behavior, with a well-known simulation method) “Simulation code was developed in collaboration with Jeongmin Lee (M.S.) to provide a means for comparing the actual test bed motion with the analytical model structure used in the identification procedures. The simulator integrates the model structure for a given set of parameter values, producing a simulated time response for the displacement and velocity of each of the three subsystems \A", \B", and \C" of the test bed.”, and Page 129, Top a specifically identified friction model is used (reproduces friction) “At relatively high steady velocities, the elements of backlash and stiction are eliminated, and the lumped motor and shaft dynamics can be identified as a second-order system with linear friction (kinetic+viscous)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the computing friction coefficients of a machine tools based on torque vs. speed commands disclosed by Tsuruta (489) in view of Andersson (Chapter), and further in view of Brookfield with the friction model of a machine tool with feed shafts disclosed by Marchi (Thesis). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to model a machine tool operation (Marchi (Thesis) Page 91, Middle “It has already been noted that the fundamental mode of the tool, modeled by a restoring torque with a nonlinear dependency on forcing frequency, is sufficient to characterise most machine tool cutting operations”).
With regard to claim 2 and 5, Tsuruta (489) in view of Andersson (Chapter), and further in view of Brookfield teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 4, and further teaches:
wherein the friction model includes a constant effect in a specific direction. (Tsuruta (489) Abstract disturbance torque is reduced (constant effect) using forward/reverse torque to calculate viscous friction as a function of speed only “The forward rotation torque command Tref1 and the reverse rotation torque command Tref 2, the constant disturbance torque Td can be obtained. Td = (Tref1 + Tref2) / 2 When the torque Td is reduced, the viscous friction is proportional to the speed, so the torque command for compensating the viscous friction is multiplied by α,”)
With regard to claim 3 and 6, Tsuruta (489) in view of Andersson (Chapter), and further in view of Brookfield teaches all the elements of the parent claim 2 and 5, and further teaches: wherein the processor determines: (see Claim Objections)
a type of friction model for viscous friction, in a case where a number of data points is one; (Tsuruta (489) Paragraph 5 torque at which speed becomes non-zero is the static friction (first data point) “The static friction torque Tg is calculated by comparing with the torque command until the motor speed of the speed control unit starts moving from zero,”)
a type of friction model for the viscous friction and static friction, in a case where the number of data points is two and velocities of the two data points are in a same direction of movement; (Tsuruta (489) Paragraph 4 viscous friction coefficient is computed from two torque/speed data points (two data points), and the second torque/speed is a factor alpha higher (velocities are in a same direction of movement) “Dc = (Tref3-Tref4) / (Vfb3-Vfb4) (3) is provided with a calculation means for calculating the viscous friction Dc from b3 and Vfb4 according to equation (3).”, and Paragraph 5 torque at which speed becomes non-zero is the static friction, where the first data points could be used to determine the static friction)
a type of friction model for the viscous friction and the constant effect, in a case where the number of data points is two and the velocities of the two data points are in opposite directions of movement; (Tsuruta (489) Abstract disturbance torque is reduced (constant effect) using forward/reverse torque (velocities are in opposite directions) to calculate viscous friction as a function of speed only “The forward rotation torque command Tref1 and the reverse rotation torque command Tref 2, the constant disturbance torque Td can be obtained. Td = (Tref1 + Tref2) / 2 When the torque Td is reduced, the viscous friction is proportional to the speed,”)
and a type of friction model for the viscous friction, the static friction, and the constant effect, in a case where the number of data points is four. (Tsuruta (489) Abstract a disturbance torque (constant effect) and static friction and viscous friction are computed from four torque/speed command values “A constant disturbance torque Td is calculated from the equation: Td = (Tref1 + Tref2) / 2, and a certain speed command Vref and a speed command αVr thereof multiplied by α are obtained. The Coulomb friction Tc is calculated from the value obtained by subtracting the calculated constant disturbance torque Td from the torque commands Tref3 and Tref4 in the steady state of ef: Tc = {α (Tref3-Td)-(Tref4-Td)} /(α-1), each torque command Tref in a steady state of a certain speed command Vref and a speed command αVref that is α times the speed command Vref 3, viscous friction Dc is calculated from Tref4 and speeds Vfb3, Vfb4 by the formula: Dc = The static friction torque Tg is calculated from (Tref3-Tref4) / (Vfb3-Vfb4) and the torque command obtained by adding these to the model and the torque command until the motor speed starts moving from zero.”)
Examiner General Comments
With regard to the prior art rejection(s), any cited portion of the relied upon reference(s), either by pointing to specific sections or as quotations, is intended to be interpreted in the context of the reference(s) as a whole as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention since the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the cited portions. Further, the claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Sun et al. “A comprehensive experimental setup for identification of friction model parameters” teaches modeling friction using different types of models.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187