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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tay et al. US 20060062637 in view of Janik et al. US 20190257052
Tay et al. discloses a self-regulating jack-up jacking system for a mobile offshore structure having legs 11, chords 15, racks 17, pinions 34, jacking assemblies 30, a central position controller 72, leg control units 74, 76, 78, dual-axis inclination sensor 80, base speed references 84, 86, 88, inverters/vector drives 110, 112, 114, motors 116, 118, 120, and feedback sensors 122, 124, 126. See Tay, FIGS. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8; ¶¶ describing legs 11, chords 15, racks 17, pinions 34, jacking assemblies 30, central controller 72, leg controllers 74/76/78, sensor 80, inverters 110/112/114, motors 116/118/120, and sensors 122/124/126.
Janik et al. discloses a jack-up rig controller 101, gearbox motor processors 103, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, sensors 131–140, gearbox motors 106, user input device 207, gearbox motor controller 501, gearbox motor 502, and sensor 503. Janik teaches individual control and monitoring of gearbox motors, speed reference values, load values, current/speed/load/torque feedback, real-time load balancing, graphical/user interface operation, and redistribution of load when a gearbox motor goes down. See Janik, FIGS. 1–5; ¶¶ describing controller 101, user input 207, gearbox motor controllers, sensors, torque/current/speed/load data, and equal load sharing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tay’s self-regulating jack-up control system to include Janik’s individual gearbox motor monitoring, user input/GUI control, and real-time load-balancing features because both references are directed to jack-up rig/platform leg control systems using rack-and-pinion or gearbox motor arrangements to raise and lower legs. Tay expressly seeks to minimize leg deformation, differential chord loading, hull inclination, and damage to jacking machinery, while Janik expressly addresses inefficiencies and single-point failures caused by lack of individual gearbox motor control and teaches individual control, monitoring, and load redistribution. The combination would merely apply Janik’s known individual-motor load-balancing improvement to Tay’s similar jack-up leg/chord jacking system to obtain the predictable result of improved load balance and fault tolerance.
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Tay discloses “a total servo drive IRT pos-sync and LSA (load self-adaptive) jack-up cooperative control system, comprises a jack-up provided with legs” by disclosing a self-regulating jack-up elevating system for a mobile offshore jack-up unit having a plurality of truss legs 11 extending through hull 16. See Tay, FIG. 1 Tay further discloses that each leg 11 includes chord members 15 having racks 17 engaged by pinions 34 of jacking assemblies 30.
Tay discloses “a main controller” by disclosing central control unit/central position controller 72. Tay discloses “a tilt angle sensor” by disclosing one or more orthogonal dual-axis inclination sensors 80 located in hull 16 that provide electrical signals proportional to hull level along two independent axes
Tay discloses “a leg position calculator” by disclosing leg position control units 74, 76, 78 and the central controller 72 calculating base speed references 84, 86, 88 for the respective legs based on hull inclination and actual elevating speed. Tay further discloses that the leg position controller calculates rack phase difference values, processes chord load and chord load differences, determines individual chord speeds, and transmits speed references to the individual chord master drives. See Tay, FIG. 8.
Tay discloses “a series control module of each leg” by disclosing, for each leg, a corresponding leg control unit 74, 76, 78, and for each chord, vector drives/inverters 110, 112, 114 and motors 116, 118, 120. See Tay, FIGS. 6 and 8.
Tay discloses “wherein the jack-up, the tilt angle sensor, the main controller and the leg position calculator are sequentially connected” by disclosing that the inclination sensor 80 provides feedback to the central controller 72, and the central controller 72 transmits base speed references 84, 86, 88 to the respective leg control units 74, 76, 78. See Tay, FIG. 6
Tay discloses “the tilt angle sensor measures a real-time tilt angle of the jack-up and send it to the main controller” by disclosing that dual-axis inclination sensor 80 provides electrical signals proportional to hull level along forward-aft and starboard-port axes to central controller 72. See Tay, FIG. 6
Tay discloses “the main controller samples the real-time tilt angle measured of the jack-up, and send it to the leg position calculator” by disclosing that central controller 72 receives feedback from inclination sensor 80 and, using that information with actual elevating speed of each leg, calculates new base speed references 84, 86, 88 for transmission to each leg individually. See Tay, FIG. 6
Tay discloses “the calculator calculate out a target position setpoint of each leg and send them to the leg control modules” by disclosing that the central controller 72 calculates base speed references 84, 86, 88 to be transmitted to the individual leg controllers 74, 76, 78, which then calculate and transmit chord speed references to the motors. Tay further discloses that the leg position controller processes rack phase difference, chord load, and chord load difference values to determine individual chord speeds and transmits speed references to individual chord master drives. See Tay, FIGS. 6 and 8.
Tay discloses “each leg corresponds to a series control module connected to the leg position calculator” by disclosing that each leg has a corresponding leg control unit 74, 76, 78, which controls local chord speed and receives a base speed reference from central controller 72. See Tay, FIG. 6.
Tay does not expressly disclose “the main controller is further connected to the HMI for information exchange” or that the “HMI is configured for a human-machine interaction interface of the entire system, so as to implement status monitoring, parameter setting and a related operation by the control system.” Janik discloses these features by teaching that jack-up rig controller receives input from user input device 207, that the user controls the operation of the jack-up rig, and that user inputs and commands are performed using a graphical user interface in data communication with the jack-up rig processor and torque control processor. See Janik, FIG. 4; user input device 207; graphical user interface.
Tay discloses or renders obvious “performed a double-layer virtual master axis IRT pos-sync with dynamic redundant fault-tolerant strategy for each leg multi-motors cooperative control” under a broadest reasonable interpretation because Tay teaches two-layer control: a central controller 72 controlling leg-level speed/position relative to hull inclination, and local leg controllers 74, 76, 78 controlling chord-level movement. Tay further teaches that in each motor group one drive functions as the chord master drive and the remaining drives function as slaves, that the choice of chord master can automatically be changed to another drive, and that such hot-switchover can occur during operation within tenths of milliseconds. See Tay, FIG. 8; chord master drive; slave drives; hot-switchover. Janik further teaches dynamic load balancing and fault tolerance by disclosing that if a single gearbox motor goes down, the load is redistributed among the remaining working gearbox motors on the leg with the failed gearbox motor. See Janik, para 24 - discussing failed gearbox motor and redistribution.
[See reasons to combine above]
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Tay in view of Janik discloses “wherein a series control module of each leg comprises a leg virtual master axis module, a 1# IRT pos-sync controller module, a chord virtual master axis module, a 2# IRT pos-sync controller module, a servo axis module, a load self-adaptive controller module and a rack and pinion drive unit that are sequentially connected.”
Tay discloses the claimed leg-level control and chord-level control architecture by teaching central controller 72, leg control units 74, 76, 78, chord master drives, slave drives, inverters/vector drives 110, 112, 114, motors 116, 118, 120, speed/position sensors 122, 124, 126, and rack-and-pinion jacking assemblies 30. See Tay, FIGS. 6 and 8.
Janik discloses the claimed load self-adaptive controller by teaching individual gearbox motor controllers 501, gearbox motors 502, sensors 503, sensor feedback of load/current/speed/torque, and speed set point/load commands sent to individual gearbox motors to share load equally. See Janik, FIG. 5; gearbox motor controller 501; motor 502; sensor 503.
Tay discloses “each leg comprises a plurality of chords” by disclosing that each leg 11 has three mutually parallel chord members 15. Tay discloses “each chord installed a rack” by disclosing that each chord member 15 includes rack members having rack teeth 17. Tay discloses “each rack matched with multi-pinions to form a plurality of rack and pinion drive units” by disclosing that each jacking assembly 30 includes four pinions 34 engaging the rack teeth 17, 19. See Tay, FIGS. 2 and 7.
Tay discloses “each rack and pinion drive unit is driven by a servo axis” by disclosing that electrically driven gear assemblies 52 drive pinions 34, that inverters/vector drives 110, 112, 114 drive motors 116, 118, 120, and that feedback is obtained from speed/position sensors 122, 124, 126. See Tay, FIGS. 6–8.
Tay discloses “each leg set a leg virtual master axis, each chord set a chord virtual master axis” under a broadest reasonable interpretation by teaching that central controller 72 generates leg-level base speed references 84, 86, 88 for the respective legs, and each motor group uses one drive as the chord master drive while the remaining motors function as slave drives. See Tay, FIGS. 6 and 8; chord master drive; slave drives.
Tay discloses “each leg virtual master axis module performs position control on the leg virtual master axis by taking the position setpoint output by the leg position calculator as the target position” by teaching that the central controller 72 calculates base speed references based on hull inclination and actual leg speed and transmits them to the leg controllers 74, 76, 78, which perform local chord speed/position control to maintain rack phase differences within allowable limits. See Tay, FIG. 6;
Tay discloses or renders obvious “1# IRT pos-sync controller module comprises an IRT pos-sync controller designed for multi-chord virtual master axes perform an IRT position synchronization with corresponding leg virtual master axis” by teaching that the leg position controller receives chord travel from each chord master drive, processes rack phase difference and chord load differences, determines individual chord speeds, and transmits speed references to individual chord master drives so that the multiple chord movements of a leg are coordinated. See Tay, FIG. 8; chord master drives; RPD; chord load difference; individual chord speeds.
Tay discloses or renders obvious “2# IRT pos-sync controller module comprises an IRT pos-sync controller designed for multi-axes on the same chord perform an IRT position synchronization with corresponding chord virtual master axis” by teaching that, within each motor group/chord, one drive functions as a chord master drive and the remaining three motors function as slaves; the chord master provides speed reference to the slave drives so all motors in the group/chord run at the same speed. See Tay, FIG. 8; chord master drive; slave drives.
Tay discloses “each servo axis comprises a servo drive and a servo motor to drive the pinion” by disclosing vector-controlled drives/inverters 110, 112, 114 and associated motors 116, 118, 120 for driving the chord/pinion arrangement. See Tay, FIGS. 6 and 8
Tay discloses or renders obvious “a position controller, a speed controller module, a current controller module and a PWM module are sequential connected between chord virtual master and servo motor to perform a high accuracy close loop position control” by teaching a high-performance closed-loop vector control system in which each motor drive receives speed feedback from the motor, the leg position controller receives chord travel and pinion load feedback, and inverter/vector drives drive motors for precise chord motion control. See Tay, FIG. 8; vector-controlled drives; speed feedback; chord travel; pinion load; closed-loop vector control.
Tay in view of Janik discloses “each slave axis on the chord or master axis on slave chord configured a LSA controller to realize a dynamic load balance on the corresponding leg” by teaching master/slave drive assignment for each chord and processing of chord load and chord load differences to determine individual chord speeds. Janik further teaches sensors detecting current, speed, load, and torque of each gearbox motor and sending speed set point/load commands to adjust the load on each gearbox motor so that the load is shared equally between all working gearbox motors on a single jack-up rig leg. See Janik, FIG. 4; operation 404; FIG. 5.
[See reasons to combine above]
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Tay in view of Janik discloses “double layer dynamical redundant fault-tolerant is performed for each leg” by disclosing a central control loop and local leg/chord control loop, with master/slave drive assignment and automatic hot-switchover - Paragraph 24. Tay teaches that in each motor group, one drive functions as the chord master drive and the remaining motors function as slave drives; the choice of chord master can automatically be changed to another drive; and switchover may be performed during operation (para 41). See Tay, FIG. 8; chord master; slave drives; automatic change; hot-switchover.
Tay discloses “each chord virtual master axis on one leg and each axis on one chord has an IRT pos-sync selection switch capable of being dynamically judged according to the corresponding error message and user set data, master chord and master axis are auto dynamically specified” by disclosing that the leg position controller determines the assignment of drives as master or slave and that the choice of chord master can automatically be changed to another drive under various circumstances, including during operation. Janik further teaches user input device 207 and a graphical user interface through which a user selects operations, as well as sensing current/speed/load/torque data for the gearbox motors. See Janik, FIG. 4; user input 207; sensor feedback.
Tay in view of Janik discloses “each failed chord virtual master axis will auto synchronous off from the leg virtual master axis and bypassed” because Tay teaches automatic changing of a chord master drive to another drive and hot-switchover during operation – para 41, and Janik teaches that if a single gearbox motor goes down on a leg, the load is redistributed among the remaining working gearbox motors on the leg with the failed gearbox motor.
Tay in view of Janik discloses “the sequential second chord dynamically auto succeeds as the master chord when master chord failed” because Tay teaches that the default first motor in a group functions as chord master, but the choice of chord master can automatically be changed to another drive during operation. Thus, selection of another available drive as master upon failure of the first/master drive is taught or at least rendered obvious. See Tay, FIG. 8; default first motor; automatic change to another drive.
Tay in view of Janik discloses “each failed servo axis auto synchronous off from the chord virtual master axis and bypassed” because Tay teaches automatic reassignment of master/slave drives and hot-switchover - para 41, and Janik teaches redistribution of load among remaining working gearbox motors when a gearbox motor goes down.
Tay in view of Janik discloses “the sequential second axis dynamically auto succeeds as the master axis when master axis failed” because Tay teaches automatic changing of the chord master to another drive under various circumstances and maintaining chord travel values upon changing the master drive, while Janik teaches fault-tolerant load redistribution when a motor fails. See Tay, FIG. 8; master/slave assignment; hot-switchover; maintaining chord travel value.
[See reasons to combine above]
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tay et al. in view of Janik et al., and further in view of Siler US 4714388.
Regarding claim 5, Tay in view of Janik discloses “wherein the LSA is configured and specified as following: each slave motor on the chord configured a LSA controller” by disclosing master/slave motor group control at each chord, and Janik discloses individual gearbox motor controllers 501 associated with each gearbox motor 502 and sensor 503. See Tay, FIG. 8; Janik, FIG. 5.
Tay in view of Janik discloses “each controller take both master torque value and slave as the input” because Tay teaches acquiring load from each pinion to calculate chord loads and chord load differences, and Janik teaches sensors on each individual gearbox motor detecting current, speed, load, and torque values. See Tay, FIG. 8; pinion load; chord load differences; Janik, FIG. 5; sensor 503; current/speed/load/torque measurement.
Tay in view of Janik discloses “and output a position compensation value to the slave motor in real time to make a load balance of multi-motors on the same chord” because Tay teaches processing chord load and chord load difference values to determine individual chord speeds and transmitting speed references to chord master drives, which transmit speed references to slave drives. Janik further teaches that the controller sends speed set point and load commands to adjust the load on each gearbox motor on a single leg so that the load is shared equally between all working gearbox motors. See Janik, FIG. 4, operation 404; FIG. 5.
Tay in view of Janik further discloses “each master motor on the slave chord configured a LSA controller” because Tay teaches chord master drives and slave drives, including multiple chord groups A, B, and C, and Janik teaches individual gearbox motor controllers for the gearbox motors.
Tay in view of Janik discloses “each controller take the torque value of master motor on master chord and the torque value of master motor on slave chord as the input” because Tay teaches acquiring chord travel from each chord master drive and load from each pinion to calculate chord loads and chord load differences, and Janik teaches monitoring load/current/speed/torque values for all gearbox motors. See Tay, FIG. 8; Janik, FIG. 5.
Tay in view of Janik discloses “and output a position compensation value to the master motor on slave chord in real time to make a load balance of multi-chord on the same leg” because Tay teaches processing rack phase difference, chord load, and chord load difference values to determine individual chord speeds, transmitting speed references to individual chord master drives, and coordinating the chord drives of the same leg. Janik further teaches sending speed set point/load commands in real time to dynamically maintain load balance.
Tay and Janik do not expressly disclose “an anti-backlash preload torque value is set in advance to activate the anti-backlash function in the chord.” Siler discloses this limitation by teaching a rack 18 engaged by dual pinions 44, with a predetermined preload torque applied to produce opposing preload forces of the pinions against the rack, thereby providing anti-backlash force. See Siler, gearboxes 40; preload mechanism 80; idler wheels 82, 84; springs 112, 122; predetermined preload torque.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Tay’s rack-and-pinion jack-up chord drive, as modified by Janik’s load-balancing individual motor control, with Siler’s known anti-backlash preload torque arrangement because Tay expressly recognizes the need for close tolerance between rack and pinion tooth-engaging surfaces and the risk of misalignment/jamming during operation, while Siler teaches using a predetermined preload torque to produce anti-backlash force between pinions and a rack to obtain precision movement without play. The combination would have predictably improved positional accuracy and reduced backlash in a rack-and-pinion drive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance — Claim 3
Claim 3 recites, in substance, that the IRT position-synchronization controller is based on direct position-loop control and isochronous real-time bus communication, wherein the IRT system obtains measured values and process data in a fixed system cycle and processes signal/output synchronously; and further recites a specific Ti/To bus-cycle process in which Ti occurs before every bus cycle clock to measure both master and slave axis actual position from an input area, the IRT position-synchronization program is processed at every start of the bus cycle clock, a position setpoint is calculated to rigidly synchronize the slave axis position with the master axis, and To occurs after every bus cycle clock to send the calculated position setpoint to the slave axis for execution.
The prior art of record teaches jack-up rig master/slave control, hot-switchover, chord-level speed/position control, individual gearbox motor control, and real-time load balancing. However, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed specific IRT bus-cycle timing process using Ti data input time, To data output time, measurement of both master and slave actual positions before every bus cycle clock, and calculation/output of position setpoints at the claimed bus-cycle timing. Tay’s hot-switchover and master/slave drive architecture is not the same as the specific Ti/To IRT bus-cycle position synchronization process recited in claim 3. Janik’s digital communication links and real-time load balancing likewise do not teach the claimed Ti/To IRT synchronization cycle.
Accordingly, claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of claim 3 and the claims from which it depends.
Reasons for Allowance — Claim 6
Claim 6 recites that the preferred LSA controller uses a PID controller and that the controller parameters are optimized and self-tuned through an intelligent algorithm such as a back propagation-radial basis function neural network, genetic algorithm, or the like.
The prior art of record teaches load balancing, torque profiles, individual gearbox motor control, and even neural-network-based monitoring and torque profile selection in Janik. However, Janik’s neural network is used to monitor load imbalance and send torque profiles/speed reference commands to equalize load. Janik does not teach or suggest a PID-based LSA controller in which PID controller parameters are optimized and self-tuned through BP-RBF neural network or genetic algorithm. Tay likewise does not teach PID parameter optimization or self-tuning through BP-RBF or genetic algorithm, and Siler is directed to mechanical anti-backlash preload torque in a rack-and-pinion drive.
Accordingly, claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of claim 6 and the claims from which it depends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M BENEDIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7824. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00-3:00.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/JUSTIN M. BENEDIK/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JUSTIN M BENEDIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights