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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/27/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 – 2 and 4 - 5 have been presented for examination. Claims 1 and 4 are currently amended. Claims 2 and 6 are cancelled.
Applicant has summarized the substance of the Examiner Interview conducted on August 11, 2026 in various sections of their remarks. The various summaries accurately represent the substance of the interview.
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 refers back to previous arguments are presented, to which Examiner refers back to the previous response to said previous arguments.
Applicant argues: “because the friction model can be generated with at least one data point, which is a particularly remarkable effect in that "a trial operation of the machine tool solely for the purpose of generating the friction model" becomes unnecessary. Also, the friction model can be generated with as little as one data point, as now is also more precisely recited in independent claim 1 of the present application.”
Applicant argues that the recited “wherein the friction model is capable of being generated from at least one data point, and thus a trial operation of the machine tool” solely for the purpose of generating the friction model is not required” amounts to a “particularly remarkable effect”. Examiner notes that is
Examiner notes that torque and velocity data for the specific machine tool is explicitly obtained (i.e., an operation of the machine tool). Looking to the specification, the entire benefit of the claimed invention comprises not requiring a trial operation of the of the machine tool solely for purposes of generating the friction model, but also for allowing a person not having specialized knowledge to generated the friction model (see the instant application Paragraph 29). Further, torque and velocity data can reasonably be obtained for any desired purpose and under any conditions (i.e., under production and/or non-trial conditions). Therefore, the full practical effect of the claimed invention is not achieved.
Applicant argues: “Applicant respectfully submits that 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.
Also, Applicant further respectfully submits that the amended subject matter, as now more precisely recited in amended independent claim 1 of the present application, is an additional element with features that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.”
Examiner notes the newly amended features cover insignificant data gathering for the “display” and “button”, and that the “the processor determines the type of the friction model based on the number of data points for torque and velocity data set by a user's operation of the button” reasonably covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer elements (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101).
Applicant argues: “Consistent with those remarks, Applicant amended independent claim 1 in that response to recite "simulates and reproduces friction in a position and behavior of each shaft of the machine tool with a well-known simulation method" in order to bolster the remarks regarding patent eligibility discussed during that previous interview and also in response to the above-indicated comments and suggestion provided by the Examiner during the interview of including a recitation in independent claim 1 to more precisely describe how the simulation is effectuated.
Despite Applicant taking this approach in the response filed on November 6, 2025 in support of patent eligibility, the Examiner did not address this amendment approach and the above-indicated associated remarks in the subsequent Office Action dated January 30, 2026 or in the latest Office Action dated June 1, 2026.”
Applicant acknowledges that Examiner suggested reciting more details on how the simulation is effectuated. It is unclear how reciting that the simulation is “well-known” meaningfully recites any further details regarding the implementation of said simulation since it covers a broad range simulation methods, notwithstanding Applicant’s arguments that the instant claims were previously amended to “more precisely describe how the simulation is effectuated”. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “The Examiner also noted during the interview that paragraph [0018] of the specification describes a specific user interface that explains how the data is acquired to effectuate the determination of the model based on the number of data points, for example.
Accordingly, Applicant has opted to further amend independent claims 1 and 4 in this paper in a manner consistent with the Examiner's above-discussed helpful comments during the interview.”
Examiner acknowledges the discussion during the interview regarding said button. Looking to the instant claims presented after the interview and upon further consideration of the disclosure, the recited “number of data points for torque and velocity data set by a user’s operation of the button” covers separate and independent actions of: (1) displaying results of the friction model, (2) storing additional data points using the button, and (3) determines the type of the friction model based on the number of data points retrieved from storage. Therefore, the “display” covers insignificant data outputting, the “a button for adding” amounts to insignificant data gathering, and “determines the type of the friction model based on the number of data points for torque and velocity data set by a user's operation of the button” covers using no more than evaluations and judgements based on observations of stored data.
Applicant argues: “Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention achieves an exceptional and remarkable effect in that a trial operation of the machine tool solely for the purpose of generating the friction model is not required and it is possible to generate a friction model with at least one data point, and we believe that the contents of the amendment constitutes an additional element having features that are significantly more than the judicial exception under case law, and that the amended claims should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive based on the preceding remarks.
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: “However, Applicant respectfully submits that Tsuruta does not describe, or even suggest, the feature of the invention of newly-amended independent claim 1 of the present application reciting a configuration in which the processor is controlled to "acquire, from the storage device, data on a torque and velocity when a velocity of a feed shaft of the machine tool is constant", or in which "the processor determines a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity." Applicant will define this difference as Difference 1.” (bold 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 Marchi (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 for the detailed mapping).
Applicant argues: “In addition, Tsuruta determines respective values of a constant disturbance torque, Coulomb friction, viscous friction, and static friction torque. Therefore, unlike the invention according to newly-amended independent claim 1 of the present application, Tsuruta does not describe or even suggest that "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," as particularly recited in independent claim 1 of the present application. Accordingly, Applicant will define this difference as Difference 2.”
Examiner notes that different types of friction model includes a different number of types of friction includes therein, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that having more data points allows for fitting more complex models. Applicant acknowledges that Tsuruta teaches parameters used in the simpler friction models (i.e., Coulomb friction only) and in more complex friction models (i.e., Coulomb and viscous friction). Therefore, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “In addition, unlike the invention according to newly-amended independent claim 1 of the present application, Tsuruta does not describe or even suggests that "the processor determines: a type of friction model for viscous friction, in a case where a number of data points is one …” (bold 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 (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 for the detailed mapping).
Applicant argues: “Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Andersson does not describe, or even suggest, a configuration in which the processor is controlled to "acquire, from the storage device, data on a torque and velocity when a velocity of a feed shaft of the machine tool is constant," as recited in newly-amended independent claim 1 of the present application.
In addition, although Andersson describes a model of Coulomb friction, a model of viscosity, and a composite model combining Coulomb friction and viscosity, unlike the invention recited in independent claim 1 of the present application, Andersson does not describe or even suggests a configuration in which "the processor determines a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity" as particularly recited in independent claim 1 of the present application. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the above discussed Difference 1 still exists between claim 1 of the present invention and Andersson.
Further, unlike the invention according to independent claim 1 of the present application, Andersson does not describe or even suggests that "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."
Moreover, unlike the invention according to independent claim I of the present application, Andersson does not describe or even suggest that "the processor determines: a type of friction model for viscous friction, in a case where a number of data points is one” (bold 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: “Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Brookfield does not describe, or even suggest, the feature of claim I of the present application of "acquire, from the storage device, data on a torque and velocity when a velocity of a feed shaft of the machine tool is constant" or "the processor determines a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity"; does not describe or even suggest that "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"; and does not describe or even suggest that "the processor determines a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity".” (bold 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, Marchi does not describe, or even suggest, the feature of independent claim 1 of the present application to "acquire, from the storage device, data on a torque and velocity when a velocity of a feed shaft of the machine tool is constant" or "the processor determines a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity"; does not describe or even suggest that "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"; and does not describe or even suggest that "the processor determines a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity".” (bold 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: “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 of the configuration and effects of the invention according to amended independent claim 1 of the present application based on the disclosures of Tsuruta, Andersson, Brookfield, and Marchi, whether taken separately or in the Office Action's applied combination.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees based on the preceding remarks.
Applicant argues: “Applicant's undersigned representative responded that claim 1 of the present application, especially as proposed to be amended during the interview, recites a very specific combination of features that are not disclosed in any of the applied references to Tsuruta, Andersson, Brookfield, and Marchi.
The Examiner responded by asserting that certain recitations in claim 1 are written quite broadly which still makes his combination rejection of the above-indicated four applied references reasonable.
The Examiner went on to note, however, that if Applicant could more precisely recite features in claim 1, as per the following discussion, for example, that would require him to likely search for one or more additional reference(s) to add to the combination rejection. The Examiner noted that, instead of continuing to assert obviousness in such a situation, he may decide to instead conclude that such a further amended claim is now patentable.
Applicant's undersigned representative inquired during the interview as to whether the Examiner could suggest an amendment approach for Applicant's consideration that would move this application in a direction of possibly overcoming the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In response, the Examiner referred to the following portion of paragraph [0018] of the specification of the present application ….
The Examiner referred to features discussed in the above-quoted portion of paragraph [0018] of the specification with regard to: 1) the number of data points being utilized to generate the model, 2) the disclosed software is adding rows and selecting a model, and 3) a user is interacting with a button as a user interface element.
The Examiner expressed his understanding during the interview that at least the feature of the above-indicated item 2) that the disclosed software is adding rows and selecting a model is not taught by the references of record.
The Examiner also noted that the feature of the above-indicated item 3) of a user interacting with a button as a user interface element is not recited in claim 1.
The Examiner even further noted that the above-quoted portion of paragraph [0018] of the specification describes a specific user interface that explains how the data is acquired to effectuate the determination of the model based on the number of data points, for example.” (bold emphasis added) (underline emphasis in original)
As previously remarked, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the amended “button as a user interface element” covers merely adding the data to storage, and the determination of the type of friction model based on the number of data points being performed based on the number of data points read from storage (see the instant application Paragraph 18 – 19 “The screen 200 illustrated in Fig. 3A includes a data display area 210 that displays the load and velocity data acquired from the storage device 20 … The data display area 210 may also include a button labeled "Add Row" for adding more load and velocity data … When the model determination unit 1101 determines the type of friction model with two (identical) data points, … the two data points for the load and velocity acquired from the storage device 20.”). Further, the later recited “data set by a user’s operation of the button” does not preclude data that is added to the storage, however, does not in any way change how the “determine the type of the friction model based on the number of data points” is performed since the number of data points is merely read from storage (i.e., relying on previously stored number of data points does not in any way distinguish based on how the data point was previously stored). Further, merely adding a number of data points to storage (i.e., by adding rows using a button) is generic data inputting since there is no specific configuration of the user interface beyond comprising a generic button, and which does not recite details on the effectuating of the adding in combination with said generic button.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is amended to recite “wherein using the generated friction model …outputting … simulating”. The additional “wherein” appear to be a typographical error missing “the processor uses” similar to “wherein the processor calculates”. 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 – 2 and 4 - 5 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 “displays a result of the friction model generated using the coefficient calculated in a screen of a user interface in which a button for adding load and velocity data is provided, the processor determines the type of the friction model based on the number of data points for torque and velocity data set by a user's operation of the button” which is unclear since the result of the friction model already depends on the determined type of friction model and prior to the user’s operation of the button. Further, the recited “the processor determines the type of the friction model based on the number of data points for torque and velocity data set by a user's operation of the button” appears to be missing a “wherein” transitional phrase. The limitation is broadly interpreted for examination purposes as determining the type of friction model either before or after the display, or alternatively that the number of data points is set before the determination of the type of friction model.
The claim recites “wherein the friction model is capable of being generated from at least one data point, and thus a trial operation of the machine tool solely for the purpose of generating the friction model is not required”. The limitation is unclear since it is not known how merely generating a friction model from at least one data point preclude trial operation of the machine tool solely for the purpose of generating the friction model (see Response to Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101). The limitation is broadly interpreted for examination purposes as the acquired data on a torque and velocity are not limited to being used solely for generating the friction model.
With regard to claims 2 and 5, they are rejected by virtue of depending from 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 – 2 and 4 – 5 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 determines a type of the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity; and 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 solely for the purpose of generating the friction model; determines the type of the friction model based on the number of data points for torque and velocity data set by a user's operation of the button, uses the generated friction model with the determined type and coefficients; 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 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 “determines” covers observations and judgements that can instantly be performed in the mind. Examiner notes that the “set by a user’s operation of the button” reasonably covers merely utilizing the number of data points from storage as a result of the user’s operation of the button, therefore, the “determines the type to friction model” requires no more than evaluations and judgements from observation of stored data (see Response to Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101). 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; displays a result of the friction model generated using the coefficient calculated in a screen of a user interface in which a button for adding load and velocity data is provided; simulates 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; wherein the friction model is capable of being generated from at least one data point, and thus a trial operation of the machine tool solely for the purpose of generating the friction model is not required. The “memory” and “processor” and “a screen of a user interface” 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” and “a button for adding” amounts to insignificant data gathering since is generic with regard to how the recited quantity is gathered requiring no more than generic user interface button and/or storage means. The “a button for adding for” covers merely utilizing the number of data points from storage as a result of the user’s operation of the button (see Response to Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101). The “outputs” and “displays” amounts to insignificant data outputting since is generic with regard to how the recited quantity is outputted. The “machine tool solely for the purpose” covers extra-solution activity since it covers activity not directly linked to the friction model. 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” and “a screen of a user interface” 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 “displays” and “a button for” 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”). The “machine tool is not test operated” covers extra-solution activity. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually at least since the “simulates” and “acquires” and “displays” and “a button for” and “outputs” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 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. 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; 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 solely for the purpose of generating the friction model, determines they type of the friction model based on the number of data points for torque and velocity data set by a user’s operation of the button; wherein using the generated friction model with the determined type and the determined coefficients; wherein the friction model is determined to comprise: 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 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” and “determined” and “determines” covers observations and judgements that can instantly be performed in the mind. Examiner notes that the “set by a user’s operation of the button” reasonably covers merely utilizing the number of data points from storage as a result of the user’s operation of the button, therefore, the “determines the type to friction model” requires no more than evaluations and judgements from observation of stored data (see Response to Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101). 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 “calculates” 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; the “processor” to implement the “calculates” and “using” (see Claim Objections); 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; displays a result of the friction model generated using the coefficient calculated in a screen of a user interface in which a button for adding load and velocity data is provided, 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; wherein the friction model is capable of being generated from at least one data point, and thus a trial operation of the machine tool solely for the purpose of generating the friction model is not required. The “causes a computer” and “the processor” to implement the “calculates” and “using” and “determines” 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” and “a button for” “a button for adding” amounts to insignificant data gathering since is generic with regard to how the recited quantity is gathered requiring no more than generic user interface button and/or storage means. The “a button for adding for” covers merely utilizing the number of data points from storage as a result of the user’s operation of the button (see Response to Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101). The ”displays” and “outputting” amounts to insignificant data outputting since is generic with regard to how the recited quantity is outputted. The “machine tool solely for the purpose” covers extra-solution activity since it covers activity not directly linked to the friction model. 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” and “the processor“ to implement the “calculates” and “using” and “determines” 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 “displays” and “a button for” 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”). The “machine tool solely for” covers extra-solution activity. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually at least since the “simulating” and “acquiring” and “displays” and “a button for” and “outputting” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 5 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. 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 – 2 and 4 – 5 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)”), and further in view of Goya et al. (US 2020/0293021) (henceforth “Goya (021)”). Tsuruta (489) and Andersson (Chapter) and Brookfield and Marchi (Thesis) and Goya (021) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of a generating a machining 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 a friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity; and the processor determines the friction model, based on a number of data points for the torque and velocity; (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112) (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 solely for the purpose of generating the friction model, and (Paragraph 4 various coefficients are computed based solely on the previously acquired reference values (without performing a trial operation by the machine tool), where reference values are usable for any other desired purpose (solely for the purpose of generating the friction model) “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).”, and Paragraph 1 the friction model is usable for actually controlling a robot, and not solely for the generation of the friction model itself “Field of the Invention The present invention relates to a control device for a robot or a machine tool”)
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.”)
wherein
a 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 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 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 (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,”)
a 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.”)
wherein the friction model is capable of being generated from at least one data point, and thus a trial operation of the machine tool solely for the purpose of generating the friction model is not required (Paragraph 1 the friction model is usable for actually controlling a robot, and not solely for the generation of the friction model itself “Field of the Invention The present invention relates to a control device for a robot or a machine tool”)
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; wherein the processor determines: a type of friction model for the various types of friction models and number of data points.
However, Andersson (Chapter) teaches:
determine a type of the friction model, based on data points for the torque and velocity; determine a type of the friction model for various types of friction models and number of data points (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_image1.png
261
461
media_image1.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_image2.png
187
336
media_image2.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”).
Tsuruta (489) in view of Andersson (Chapter), and further in view of Brookfield, and further in view does not appear to explicitly disclose: displays a result of the friction model generated using the coefficient calculated in a screen of a user interface in which a button for adding load and velocity data is provided, that the determined type of the friction model based on the number of data points for torque and velocity data is data set by a user's operation of the button.
However, Goya (021) teaches:
displays a result of a machining model generated in a screen of a user interface in which in which a button for adding machining simulation data is provided (Paragraph 85 a result of the machining model is displayed, where a result of the friction model of Tsuruta (489) could be displayed which is covered by the generic machining model of Goya (021) “The input/output unit 11 displays the range of the setting condition calculated by the simulation execution unit 12 on the display to notify the user.”, and Paragraph 59 the display can also have a field for inputting desired simulation input data, where a button is used to execute the simulation included the input data (a button for adding machining simulation data) “displays a screen (an interface image) displaying an input field for the machining detail information, a simulation execution instruction button on the display connected to the simulation device 10, and the user inputs the machining detail information and the simulation execution instruction from the screen”)
machining simulation data set by a user's operation of the button (Paragraph 100 the execution of the simulation also sets the input data (set by a user’s operation), where the friction model of Tsuruta (489) is covered by the generic machining model of Goya (021) “When the input of the machining detail information and the like and the input of the simulation execution instruction are received, the simulation execution unit 12 inputs the input machining detail information and the like to the simulation model, and further sets the values of the internal parameters in the selected template in the simulation model and executes the simulation. Then, the input/output unit 11 displays the simulation result information by the simulation execution unit 12 on the display.”, and Paragraph 42 the simulation data is read from a storage (set by a user’s operation of the button) “The storage unit 16 stores the machining detail information, the setting condition information, the machining result information, the values of the internal parameters of the simulation model,”)
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, and further in view of Marchi (Thesis) with the machining simulation results display and input data disclosed by Goya (024). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to calculate machining simulation results (see Goya (024) Paragraph 9 “the machining detail and the setting condition are input and the first machining result is calculated on the basis of a prescribed machining simulation model.”).
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 the processor determines the friction model based on the number of data points for torque and velocity (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112) (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 the torque and velocity data for the number of data points without performing a trial operation by the machine tool solely for the purpose of generating the friction model, and (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).”, and Paragraph 1 the friction model is usable for actually controlling a robot, and not solely for the generation of the friction model itself “Field of the Invention The present invention relates to a control device for a robot or a machine tool”)
wherein 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.”)
wherein
a 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 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 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 (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,”)
a 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.”)
wherein the friction model is capable of being generated from at least one data point, and thus a trial operation of the machine tool solely for the purpose of generating the friction model is not required (Paragraph 1 the friction model is usable for actually controlling a robot, and not solely for the generation of the friction model itself “Field of the Invention The present invention relates to a control device for a robot or a machine tool”)
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; wherein the friction model is determined to comprise: a type of friction model for the various types of friction models and number of data points.
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_image1.png
261
461
media_image1.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_image2.png
187
336
media_image2.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”).
Tsuruta (489) in view of Andersson (Chapter), and further in view of Brookfield, and further in view does not appear to explicitly disclose: displays a result of the friction model generated using the coefficient calculated in a screen of a user interface in which a button for adding load and velocity data is provided, that the determined type of the friction model based on the number of data points for torque and velocity data is data set by a user's operation of the button.
However, Goya (021) teaches:
displays a result of a machining model generated in a screen of a user interface in which in which a button for adding machining simulation data is provided (Paragraph 85 a result of the machining model is displayed, where a result of the friction model of Tsuruta (489) could be displayed which is covered by the generic machining model of Goya (021) “The input/output unit 11 displays the range of the setting condition calculated by the simulation execution unit 12 on the display to notify the user.”, and Paragraph 59 the display can also have a field for inputting desired simulation input data, where a button is used to execute the simulation included the input data (a button for adding machining simulation data) “displays a screen (an interface image) displaying an input field for the machining detail information, a simulation execution instruction button on the display connected to the simulation device 10, and the user inputs the machining detail information and the simulation execution instruction from the screen”)
machining simulation data set by a user's operation of the button (Paragraph 100 the execution of the simulation also sets the input data (set by a user’s operation), where the friction model of Tsuruta (489) is covered by the generic machining model of Goya (021) “When the input of the machining detail information and the like and the input of the simulation execution instruction are received, the simulation execution unit 12 inputs the input machining detail information and the like to the simulation model, and further sets the values of the internal parameters in the selected template in the simulation model and executes the simulation. Then, the input/output unit 11 displays the simulation result information by the simulation execution unit 12 on the display.”, and Paragraph 42 the simulation data is read from a storage (set by a user’s operation of the button) “The storage unit 16 stores the machining detail information, the setting condition information, the machining result information, the values of the internal parameters of the simulation model,”)
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, and further in view of Marchi (Thesis) with the machining simulation results display and input data disclosed by Goya (024). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to calculate machining simulation results (see Goya (024) Paragraph 9 “the machining detail and the setting condition are input and the first machining result is calculated on the basis of a prescribed machining simulation model.”).
With regard to claim 2 and 5, Tsuruta (489) in view of Andersson (Chapter), and further in view of Brookfield, and further in view of Marchi (Thesis) 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,”)
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:
CN101034865 teaches equations for dynamic friction torque in the control of a motor.
WO2023011832 teaches creating a friction model comprising coulomb and viscous friction.
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
Prosecution Insights