DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The specification, the abstract and the drawings are all acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1, 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 6,083,180 to Shimizu, and in view of USPN 8,925,661 to Minoshima.
As to claim 1, Shimizu teaches a vibration test device(col. 1: lines 57 – col. 3: lines 20), comprising: a vibrating table on which an object to be vibrated is to be attached and an electric actuator that vibrates the vibrating table in a predetermined direction and electric power regenerated from the electric motor when the vibrating table is vibrated at the desired amplitude and frequency, to the power source(col. 5: lines 38-53) and a controller that controls the electric actuator(col. 5: lines 3-5), wherein the electric actuator includes: an electric motor of which rotation can be switched between forward and reverse rotations(col. 5: lines 10-15); and a drive device that is supplied with electric power from a power source and controlled by the controller to supply driving electric power for vibrating the vibrating table at desired amplitude and frequency to the electric motor(col. 5: lines 38-53).
Shimizu does not teach the drive device includes a power regenerative converter that regenerates electric power that is not consumed by acceleration of the electric motor.
Minoshima teaches the drive device includes a power regenerative converter that regenerates electric power that is not consumed by acceleration of the electric motor(col. 3: lines 10-19).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Minoshima into
Shimizu since Shimizu suggests a motor control system and Minoshima suggests the beneficial
use of a power regenerative converter that regenerates electric power in the analogous art of
motor control technology.
The motivation for this comes from the fact that Minoshima teaches a power regenerative converter that regenerates electric power which can be used to improve the motor control system disclosed by Shimizu.
As to claim 7, Shimizu in view of Minoshima teaches the vibration test device according to claim 1, wherein the power source comprises an alternating current power source(Minoshima col. 5: lines 52-55), and the power regenerative converter comprises a bidirectional ACDC converter(Minoshima fig. 7: “20”).
As to claim 8, Shimizu in view of Minoshima teaches The vibration test device according to claim 1, wherein: the power source comprises a direct current power source(Minoshima fig. 7: “17” is a rectifier to supply DC power) and the power regenerative converter comprises a bidirectional DCDC converter(Minoshima fig. 7: “20”).
As to claims 9-16, they are rejected as the same reason as claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 2-6 are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claim 1, but could be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims for the following reasons: No prior art of record discloses the features as claimed in the noted claims.
6. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The non-obvious features are:
In comparison with the closest prior art as cited in this Office action and any previous Office actions, no prior art of record discloses the following features as claimed in the following claim limitations:
As per claim 2: The controller controls the drive device so that the electric motor repeats forward and reverse rotations at a required frequency during a drive period of the electric motor, and the power regenerative converter outputs the electric power regenerated from the electric motor during deceleration processes of the electric motor in the forward and reverse rotations, respectively, to the power source.
As per claim 3: Among a forward rotation period and a reverse rotation period of the electric motor which are continuously repeated, the vibrating table moves in a forward direction during the forward rotation period, and the vibrating table moves in a reverse direction during the reverse rotation period, the forward rotation period includes a first acceleration period of the electric motor that starts at the time when the vibrating table starts moving and a first deceleration period of the electric motor that ends when the vibrating table stops moving, the reverse rotation period includes a second acceleration period of the electric motor that starts at the time when the vibrating table starts moving and a second deceleration period of the electric motor that ends at the time when the vibrating table stops moving, and the controller: accelerates the electric motor so that torque of the electric motor becomes positive during the first acceleration period; decelerates the electric motor so that the torque of the electric motor becomes negative during the first deceleration period; accelerates the electric motor so that the torque of the electric motor becomes positive during the second acceleration period; and decelerates the electric motor so that the torque of the electric motor becomes negative during the second deceleration period.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPN 10,447,172 to Hayashi discloses a motor control system.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID S LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5251. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/DAVID LUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights