DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10-11, & 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Harada et al (U.S. PGPub # 2016/019998).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Harada teaches:
A position detection system comprising:
a primary encoder (Fig. 2 Element 31. See paragraphs 0035-0036.) for detecting a position of a motor shaft (Fig. 2 Elements 21 & 43. See paragraphs 0035-0036.) of a motor (Fig. 2 Element 14. See paragraphs 0035-0036.), and
a secondary encoder (Fig. 2 Element 32. See paragraphs 0035-0036.) for detecting a position of an output shaft (Fig. 2 Element 44. See paragraphs 0035-0036.) of a speed reducer (Fig. 2 Element 41. See paragraphs 0035-0036.) coupled to the motor (Fig. 2 Element 14. See paragraphs 0035-0036.), and further comprising:
an encoder power source for energizing and operating (Fig. 2 Element 58. See paragraphs 0043-0044.) at least one of the primary encoder (Fig. 2 Element 31. See paragraphs 0035-0036.) and the secondary encoder in a predetermined situation.
Regarding claim 4, Harada teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Harada teaches the predetermined situation is a situation in which the output shaft is moving due to inertia after power supply to the motor is stopped (See paragraphs 0039, 0046, 0051, & 0075 wherein coasting is moving with inertia.).
Regarding claim 5, Harada teaches all elements of claim 4, upon which this claim depends.
Harada teaches the encoder power source is a capacitor or a backup battery (See paragraphs 0074 & 0077 wherein a battery is disclosed.).
Regarding Independent claim 7, Harada teaches:
An actuator, comprising:
a motor (Fig. 2 Element 14. See paragraphs 0035-0036.),
a speed reducer coupled to the motor (Fig. 2 Element 41. See paragraphs 0035-0036.),
a primary encoder for detecting a position (Fig. 2 Element 31. See paragraphs 0035-0036.) of a motor shaft (Fig. 2 Elements 21 & 43. See paragraphs 0035-0036.) of the motor (Fig. 2 Element 14. See paragraphs 0035-0036.), and
a secondary encoder for detecting a position (Fig. 2 Element 32. See paragraphs 0035-0036.) of an output shaft (Fig. 2 Element 44. See paragraphs 0035-0036.) of the speed reducer (Fig. 2 Element 41. See paragraphs 0035-0036.), and further comprising:
an encoder power source (Fig. 2 Element 58. See paragraphs 0043-0044.) for energizing and operating (Fig. 2 Element 58. See paragraphs 0043-0044.) at least one of the primary encoder (Fig. 2 Element 31. See paragraphs 0035-0036.) and the secondary encoder in a predetermined situation.
Regarding claim 10, Harada teaches all elements of claim 7, upon which this claim depends.
Harada teaches the predetermined situation is a situation in which the output shaft is moving due to inertia after power supply to the motor is stopped (See paragraphs 0039, 0046, 0051, & 0075 wherein coasting is moving with inertia.).
Regarding claim 11, Harada teaches all elements of claim 10, upon which this claim depends.
Harada teaches the encoder power source is a capacitor or a backup battery (See paragraphs 0074 & 0077 wherein a battery is disclosed.).
Regarding Independent claim 13, Harada teaches:
A position detection method for a position detection system comprising a primary encoder for detecting a position of a motor shaft of a motor and a secondary encoder for detecting a position of an output shaft of a speed reducer coupled to the motor, the method comprising the steps of:
in response to a stop command for the machine, stopping power supply to the motor, whereby the rotor of the motor moves by inertia (Paragraphs 0009, 0046, 0051, & 0075 wherein coasting is moving with inertia.),
by means of an encoder power source (Fig. 2 Element 58. See paragraphs 0043-0044.), energizing and operating at least one of the primary encoder (Fig. 2 Element 31. See paragraphs 0035-0036.) and the secondary encoder, and
storing the position of at least one of the primary encoder (Fig. 2 Element 51. See paragraphs 0040 & 0043-0044.) and the secondary encoder when the output shaft stops (Fig. 2 Element 52. See paragraphs 0040 & 0043-0044.).
Regarding claim 14, Harada teaches all elements of claim 13, upon which this claim depends.
Harada teaches the encoder power source is a capacitor or a backup battery (See paragraphs 0074 & 0077 wherein a battery is disclosed.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al (U.S. PGPub # 2016/019998).
Regarding claim 6, Harada teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Harada does not explicitly teach the encoder power source is configured to energize only the secondary encoder.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the encoder power source be configured to energize only the secondary encoder because it would make little to no difference in the actually functioning of the machine and because the labeling of first and second encoder is arbitrary. Having the encoder power source be configured to energize only the secondary encoder could also imply that each encoder has its own power source which would be even be more useful. One could simply choose to connect a battery to element 31 or 32 or both with little to no effort.
Regarding claim 12, Harada teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Harada does not explicitly teach the encoder power source is configured to energize only the secondary encoder.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the encoder power source be configured to energize only the secondary encoder because it would make little to no difference in the actually functioning of the machine and because the labeling of first and second encoder is arbitrary. Having the encoder power source be configured to energize only the secondary encoder could also imply that each encoder has its own power source which would be even be more useful. One could simply choose to connect a battery to element 31 or 32 or both with little to no effort.
Claims 2-3 & 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al (U.S. PGPub # 2016/019998) in view of Schwaiger et al (U.S. PGPub # 2020/0124415).
Regarding claim 2, Harada teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Harada teaches the predetermined situation is a situation in which the machine is stopped (See paragraphs 0039, 0046, 0051, & 0075 wherein coasting after the motion command to stop has been issued.)
Harada does not explicitly teach a situation in which a brake mechanism for stopping at least one of the motor shaft of the motor and the output shaft of the speed reducer is released.
Schwaiger teaches a situation in which a brake mechanism for stopping at least one of the motor shaft of the motor and the output shaft of the speed reducer is released (Paragraphs 0005 & 0053 wherein a rotational system with brakes and a time when the brakes are released is disclosed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Schwaiger to the teachings of Harada such that there would exist a situation in which a brake mechanism for stopping at least one of the motor shaft of the motor and the output shaft of the speed reducer is released because brakes are ubiquitously used to stop rotating elements and because they eventually need to be released if motion is to restart.
Regarding claim 3, Harada & Schwaiger teach all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Harada & Schwaiger do not explicitly teach the encoder power source is a controller for controlling the machine.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the encoder power source be a controller for controlling the machine because the source of power to the encoder is not nearly as important as its reliability and ease of manufacture. If the controller can provide reliable power efficiently and easily, then one of ordinary skill in the art would use it. See MPEP Section 2144.05 II A.
Regarding claim 8, Harada teaches all elements of claim 7, upon which this claim depends.
Harada teaches the predetermined situation is a situation in which the machine is stopped (See paragraphs 0039, 0046, 0051, & 0075 wherein coasting after the motion command to stop has been issued.)
Harada does not explicitly teach a situation in which a brake mechanism for stopping at least one of the motor shaft of the motor and the output shaft of the speed reducer is released.
Schwaiger teaches a situation in which a brake mechanism for stopping at least one of the motor shaft of the motor and the output shaft of the speed reducer is released (Paragraphs 0005 & 0053 wherein a rotational system with brakes and a time when the brakes are released is disclosed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Schwaiger to the teachings of Harada such that there would exist a situation in which a brake mechanism for stopping at least one of the motor shaft of the motor and the output shaft of the speed reducer is released because brakes are ubiquitously used to stop rotating elements and because they eventually need to be released if motion is to restart.
Regarding claim 9, Harada & Schwaiger teach all elements of claim 8, upon which this claim depends.
Harada & Schwaiger do not explicitly teach the encoder power source is a controller for controlling the machine.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the encoder power source be a controller for controlling the machine because the source of power to the encoder is not nearly as important as its reliability and ease of manufacture. If the controller can provide reliable power efficiently and easily, then one of ordinary skill in the art would use it. See MPEP Section 2144.05 II A.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights