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
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, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das US publication no.: US 2019/0097552 A1 in view of Aso et al. US publication no.: US 2010/0207464 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Das teaches, A method for operating a linear motor with at least one shuttle (movers 100, figure 1) and a stator (track segments 12, figure 1), wherein: a plurality of drive coils is arranged on the stator (coils 50, figure 2) and a number of drive magnets is arranged on the at least one shuttle (Tn) or a number of drive magnets is arranged on the stator and a number of drive coils is arranged on the at least one shuttle (drive magnet 140, figures 5-7) , during operation of the linear motor, the drive coils in the region of the at least one shuttle are energized under control of a control unit (control to produce an electromagnetic field that interacts with a drive magnetic field produced by the number of drive magnets in order to generate a propulsive force that moves the shuttle along the stator (see paragraph 51 where it is explained that the drive magnets are energized to control the operation of the mover),cogging forces at least in one direction of movement of the shuttle along the stator are determined as a function of the relative position of the at least one shuttle with respect to the stator in the at least one direction of movement while the drive coils in the region of the shuttle (as explained in paragraph 50 that the cogging forces are determined), the determined cogging forces are stored in the control unit, and the cogging forces in the at least one movement direction determined with drive coils are used by the control unit to compensate the cogging forces during operation of the linear motor in dependence of the relative position between a shuttle for which the cogging forces are compensated and the stator during operation of the linear motor (as further explained in paragraph 50, the cogging forces are compensated utilizing storage feature in the the memory 206 and table 321 to store the magnitude of cogging forces).
Das is silent on specifically teaching: the drive coils in the region of the shuttle are non-energized.
However, Aso et al. is in the same field of art and teach: the drive coils in the region of the shuttle are non-energized (see paragraph 49).
In view of Aso et al.’s teachings, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Das to include; he drive coils in the region of the shuttle are non-energized, for the purpose of improving control of the motor drive system.
Regarding claim 2, Das teaches, the method according to claim 1, wherein: the cogging forces are additionally be determined in a direction transverse to a direction of movement along the stator while the drive coils in the region of the at least one shuttle; and the cogging forces in transverse direction determined with coils are used to compensate the cogging forces in transverse direction for a shuttle for which the cogging forces are compensated during operation of the linear motor (see paragraphs 5-7 and 50-52).
Das is silent on specifically teaching: the drive coils in the region of the shuttle are non-energized.
However, Aso et al. is in the same field of art and teach: the drive coils in the region of the shuttle are non-energized (see paragraph 49).
In view of Aso et al.’s teachings, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Das to include; he drive coils in the region of the shuttle are non-energized, for the purpose of improving control of the motor drive system.
Regarding claim 11, the method according to claim 1, wherein a cogging compensation unit uses the stored cogging forces to determine a compensation signal that is used in the control unit during operation of the linear motor to influence a manipulated variable configured to energize the active drive coils in order to compensate the cogging forces (see paragraph 50).
Regarding claim 12, Das teaches, the method according to claim 11, wherein: a movement controller calculates the manipulated variable from a given setpoint value of the movement of a shuttle for which the cogging forces are compensated (position and velocity control loops, figure 10), and the cogging compensation unit superimposes the compensation signal onto the manipulated variable or onto the setpoint value (see figure 10 and paragraphs 46-49 where the superimposing of signals are disclosed at summing junction 320)
Regarding claim 13, Das teaches, The method according to claim 12, wherein: the cogging compensation unit calculates the compensation signal as inverse of the cogging force, and the cogging compensation unit superimposes the compensation signal onto a force setpoint value of the movement controller (See figure 10 and paragraphs 46-49, where the summing junction along with the compensating of cogging forces provide the compensation signal to be “inverse” of the cogging force).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das US publication no.: US 2019/0097552 A1 in view of Aso et al. US publication no.: US 2010/0207464 A1 and further in view of Shrewsbury US publication no.: US 2022/0288776 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Das as modified is silent on specifically teaching, the method according to claim 1, wherein the compensation of the cogging forces during operation of the linear motor is done in dependence on the speed of the shuttle for which the cogging forces are compensated, wherein the compensation is reduced with increasing speed.
However, Shrewsbury is in the same field of art and teach: wherein the compensation of the cogging forces during operation of the linear motor is done in dependence on the speed of the shuttle for which the cogging forces are compensated, wherein the compensation is reduced with increasing speed (see paragraph 69 where the compensation for cogging torque is dependent on speed and as the speed increases the solution is to “decrease” cogging compensation).
In view of Shrewsbury’s teachings, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Das to include; wherein the compensation of the cogging forces during operation of the linear motor is done in dependence on the speed of the shuttle for which the cogging forces are compensated, wherein the compensation is reduced with increasing speed, for the purpose of improving control of the motor drive system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOHEB S IMTIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4308. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-730pm.
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.
/ZOHEB S IMTIAZ/Primary Examiner , Art Unit 2837
